Talk:Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mario &amp; Sonic at the Olympic Games/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

A quick scan shows me a very well-written and comprehensive article. I'm fairly certain it will pass, but I'll analyze the article deeper and find errors in need of correction. Good job to all editors involved in writing this article! --haha169 (talk) 22:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Things to fix:
 * To start off, the lead needs some mention of the game's development, preferably a summary of the development section below.
 * The "Gallery mode" paragraph in Gameplay, (3 paragraphs down from top), needs cites.
 * "X-Play agreed calling..." There should be a comma between agreed and calling.
 * "X-Play agreed calling...", "IGN called...", "GamePro called...". A bit repetitive, eh?
 * "Each competition offers a slight degree of difference. In the running events, for example, getting a starting boost in the 100 m dash will either make or break the player's place, while in a relay race, which can last for well over a minute, this may not determine place as effectively." - This needs a cite.
 * Image:Mario&Soniccharacterscreen.jpg needs an appropriate fair-use rationale, as well as non-free media reduced. See Image:SSBB Gameplay.jpg for a good example.

Praise:
 * This article is very easy to read. Good job on that!
 * I especially like the Development section, very thorough, detailed, understandable, and well cited.
 * Overall, the Reception section is nicely written as well. Great organization, especially.

Just fix those problems, and I think it will be ready to pass GAN. Great organization, satisfactory prose, and great in following WP:NPOV. --haha169 (talk) 16:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 16, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Nice prose, interesting to read. Understandable
 * 2. Factually accurate?:, unless the cites you used were inaccurate. I doubt it though.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?:, very nice development section.
 * 4. Neutral point of view?:, there really isn't anything to be POV'ed about.
 * 5. Article stability?, barely any edits on the main article - I would appreciate it, however, if you replied to this GAN as well, instead of just making the edit and leave.
 * 6. Images?:, All issues fixed.

Good job. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— haha169 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)