Talk:Mega Man 3/GA1

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

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 15:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the near future, most likely tomorrow. Canadian  Paul  15:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:

A very nice article, my only concern is that the second paragraph under Development doesn't flow very well; it's a bit choppy and jumps from fact to fact, making it difficult to read/follow. Is there anything that can be done to improve that?

Other than that, this article is more than ready for GA status. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian  Paul  16:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to fix the flow as you've suggested. Let me know if this works. ~ Hibana (talk) 11:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better and now an obvious pass for GA, which I will do right now. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian   Paul  16:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)