Talk:Goomba/GA1

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

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Status
This section should only be modified by reviewer(s).
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Discussion
Regarding the failing points:
 * 1) 1(b): the references should follow the same format. The article has a plain URL reference and some other aren't properly formatted.
 * 2) 1(b): the first paragraph of Reception and promotion section has 8 references stacked together, which seems to be an overkill. Consider using Notes section for grouping such clusters of references when needed.
 * 3) 2(a): the article has a citation needed tag since December 2009.
 * 4) 2(a): one of the references has a dead link tag since November 2010.
 * 5) 2(a): external links checker reveals problems with other references.
 * 6) 2(a): reference to Nintendo Power (currently #22) lacks "title" attribute.
 * 7) 2(c): the lead and sections Concept and creation and Appearances seem to be insufficiently referenced. Some of the currently available references could be reused for this purpose.

Comments: Feel free to discuss this all. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall, solving these problems is a matter of several hours. But unless this is done, the article doesn't qualify for GA.
 * The article mentions several similar enemies from other games. Though I'm not going to fail the GA on this particular item, I think it should note the corresponding enemy from SuperTux.
 * I did all I could without dropping the status of reviewer. It would be nice if someone could step out to take care of the rest.