Talk:EarthBound fandom/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave some initial comments tomorrow or tonight. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 14:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

• "Their members organized petitions and campaigns to bring English-localized games from the Mother series to North America." - who? Starman.net or EarthBound Central?
• "...the series creator has stated that he is finished with the series, fan-created sequel, Mother 4, is also in development." - missing a noun? "a fan-created sequel, Mother 4"
• Is Mother 4 currently in development? I know fan-created games usually get delayed or stopped through lack of development?
• Other than those though the lead complies per WP:LEAD and meets the GA criteria as it summarises the article well.

Fan base

• "EarthBound was hard to find before the rerelease" - does this mean that the actual SNES cartridge was rare/hard to find? Also rerelease -> re-release (changed this myself though)

Starman.net

• " Other petitions include the 2000 10,000-person petition" - this is the year 2000, right?

Close - promoted

Not even going to put this on hold as the concerns are not significant. You can address them if you'd like, despite the lead already meeting the GA criteria those questions could be addressed if one day you would like to nominate this for FA! Anyway the article meets the GA criteria as it is. It is broad, well written, comprehensive and focused. There are very few prose problems (if none at all), I read through the rest of the article and I could find no copyediting issues at all. Another EarthBound GA, well done! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:31, 16 July 2014 (UTC)