Talk:Fighting game/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

If Randomran is still inactive over the next few days I'll try and fix the issues. Kind of busy with IRL at the moment though. bridies (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * There is a couple of double-negatives such as without no comparison and not unlink paper-rock-scissors that need to be corrected. (I don't feel comfortable correcting that myself as I might change the meaning of the statement.) There is also some passive voice that can be corrected and made into active voice. Examples include (from top to bottom):
 * Fighters are traditionally shown from a side-view...
 * ...the conventions of the genre were popularized and standardized by Street Fighter II,...
 * Fighters are usually displayed on screen from a side view...
 * Characters are usually confined to...
 * ...the player's actions are limited to different offensive and defensive maneuvers.
 * Combos, in which several attacks are chained together using basic punches and kicks, are another common feature in fighting games...
 * The popularity of early fighting games was limited by technical challenges.
 * Got most of the passive voice, I think. bridies (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. That second-to-last sentence above is not passive voice; don't know why I put that there. MuZemike 17:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The other instances I'll try to correct when I do my customary copyedit-sweep of the article. At that time I will also check for any significant MOS issues.
 * MoS issues:
 * Lead section: The lead should be expanded to at least a third paragraph, as this is a rather large (about 43KB) article. (cf. WP:LEAD)
 * Layout: Are there any External Links that can be inserted to provide further reading?
 * Words to avoid: change the following italicized terms to more neutral terms, or remove them alternatively (cf. WP:WTA): noted, however, although, whereas, despite, only, just.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * This MobyGames reference is not considered a reliable as it is self-published; it's taking information in the description section of that source. Please replace with a better source.
 * I took the liberty and removed that whole statement with that source. The message conveyed in that paragraph remains fine without that statement. MuZemike 00:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Some instablility, but due to either vandalism or regarding the addition of unverifiable material and not with legitimate edit-warring or content dispute.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Fair-use rationales need a little more strengthening. Also, I question whether the Super Smash Bros. image is needed in this article, and including that there is already three other non-free images present. I think it could be simply removed. I'll also look into better fair-use image reductions of the non-free images later on.
 * I went ahead and strengthened the fair-use rationales for the non-free images and made some non-free reductions. MuZemike 00:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Nomination placed on hold pending corrections made above. MuZemike 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added MoS issues above. That should be everything. I will also try to make some corrections when I can. MuZemike 03:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nomination placed on hold pending corrections made above. MuZemike 17:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added MoS issues above. That should be everything. I will also try to make some corrections when I can. MuZemike 03:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Take your time. MuZemike 07:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot pass this article currently as it still has some prose and MoS issues as noted above, and I think I've given more than enough time for improvements to be made. It can be brought back for another GAN, or just let me know when they do get addressed. MuZemike 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Future reference:
 * Fixed double negatives.
 * Removed words-to-avoid (most of them, I think...). bridies (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Expanded lead to 3 paragraphs. bridies (talk) 08:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything above looks good, now. Passed. MuZemike 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)