Talk:Minecraft/GA2

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

Reviewer: Jesse V. (talk · contribs) 02:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Review
''This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer(s); please, leave your comments in the Discussion section below. The reviewer(s) will cross out issues when they have been sufficiently addressed.''

This article looks really good, and I want to thank everyone who put their time and effort into it. I know from experience how hard it is to bring an article up to Good Article standards. All concerns have been addressed, and it appears to me that it follows the remaining criteria for a GA, so I'm going to pass it! :)

If I had to make one suggestion, it would be to add |archiveurl=, |archivedate=, and |deadurl= fields to all the references. This article relies so heavily on sources on the Internet, and webpages are notorious for being moved or deleted over time. Fixing deadlink is really annoying, and sometimes a reference is impossible to replace. This linkrot is essentially countered by adding a backup link to an archive, such as to WP:WEBCITE. Doing this is not a requirement of the GA nomination, so I'm not requiring it now, but I think archiving the links will pay off in the long run. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 02:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Thanks! --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Great job to everyone who helped turn this into a Good Article! - M0rphzone (talk) 04:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Please refer to the issues in the table above by their numbers (eg. 1a1 for first issue with "prose" criterion).


 * ✅ 2b1 -I've changed the wording. It now says the game's physics system is unrealistic rather than complex. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 6a1 -I've added more details to the fair use rationale. However, I can't do much about the "blue box". It's usually handled by a bot, patroller, or an admin.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added image has rationale=yes. Vacation nine 22:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 2c1 -Removed "already".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 2b2 -Added attribution (Carl Manneh) to the somewhat opinionated statement. Also did some rewording in that paragraph because it contained some close paraphrasing. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 2b2 hasn't been striked yet. Is the issue unresolved?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been resolved, I just forgot to strike it, which I have just done. I'm still reviewing the remaining aspects, so even though those issues have been crossed off, that section is still "?" until I finish. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 19:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ 1a1 -Added comma. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 1a2 -Removed "have".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 1a3 -Fixed grammar issue. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ 1a4 -Removed "title". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)