Talk:Shigeru Miyamoto/GA1

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

Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * Miyamoto's endeavors into the Kyoto countryside manifested in his later work, particularly the NES version of The Legend of Zelda. "endeavors into"? "manifested in his later work" Please rewrite in plain English. Expand the acronym NES, remember that your reader may not know what it stands for.
 * There are several stray sentences throughout that need consolidating into paragraphs.
 * I think it is done. -- Pedro J. the rookie 14:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite: Miyamoto suggested to work on the next large-scale Mario game after Nintendo EAD Tokyo finished development on Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat in late 2004,[60] pushing for the spherical platform concept to be realized.[ "suggested to work on " What does that mean? ✅
 * A prototype of the game's physics system took three months to build, where it was decided that the game's use of spherical platforms would best be suited to planetoids in an outer space environment, with the concept of gravity as a major feature. "where it was decided"? ✅
 * During development, the designers would often exchange ideas with Miyamoto from his office in Kyoto, where he would make suggestions to the game design "often exchange ideas with Miyamoto from his office" so they were in his office, where was he? I think you mean something else, [please rewrite clearly. {done}}
 * . He also produced New Super Mario Bros. Wii, a platformer similar to the original Super Mario Bros. but being able to play with four players.  "but being able to play with"?
 * I made a number of copy-edits for style, clarity and grammar, please get help from copy-editors before nominating at WP:GAN. It is not the job of the reviewer to rewrite artciles in clear, plain English. That needs to be done before nomination.
 * Done, it was copyedited before nomination. -- Pedro J. the rookie 22:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed the GOCE banner, but can see no evidence that User:Scapler actually edited the artcile on or around 2 February 2010. In any case there have been a lot of edits since then. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * On one of these expeditions, Miyamoto came upon a cave, and, after days of hesitation, went inside. During another trip, Miyamoto came upon a lake, which he later described as feeling like a "vast ocean." is not supported by ref #3
 * Still looking for something to support  after days of hesitation, went inside. What did he do during those days?  Did he sit outside?
 * ref #4, Sheff, David (1993). Game Over. Random House. ISBN 0-679-40469-4. needs a page reference. Still looking for a page number here!
 * It is a book dose not have a page. -- Pedro J. the rookie 19:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I did not make myself clear, we need to know on which page (the page number) of the book that the reference is to be found. See WP:Citing sources
 * Done. -- Pedro J. the rookie 14:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

#:: ref #5 is a a kind of wiki, anyone who registers can edit this, not a WP:RS
 * What makes ref #19 a reliable source?
 * ref #3 is the same as ref #21, they should be collpased together and formatted in the same manner.
 * What makes ref #26 Magic box a [WP:RS|reliable source]]?
 * ref #27 Mobygames is a wiki, not a reliable source
 * ref #28 - Amazon is not good to support this statement.  basically Amazon is just good for ISBNs, publisher details.
 * ref #29 is a blog
 * What makes ref #30  a reliable source?
 * ref #632 looks like a forum to me.
 * 1up is a game xritic like IGN. -- Pedro J. the rookie 19:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Che Chou is just a forum member, not any sort of professional critic or respected journalist. Not a reliable source.
 * ref #74 is a wiki
 * ref #92 is a wiki, not a reliable source. You need to learn how to identify reliable sources
 * What makes ref #101  a reliable source?
 * ref #124 looks like a forum.
 * Start again as numbering has changed.
 * I will tag each disputed refernce here. please familiarise your self with WP:RS. It is up to anyone using a source to demonstrate that it is a relaible source.
 * 54 Your havard notation is not working as you do not have the source book listed in a sparate works cited section. Please see WP:Citing sources for information on how to make this work.
 * Done. -- Pedro J. the rookie 14:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Alll unreliable sources are gone. -- Pedro J. the rookie 15:25, 10 April 2010 (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.:
 * 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:
 * OK, On hold for seven day for above issues to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, just a few more points with the prose, raised above. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed a few more issues with the prose. As mentioned above get help from the WP:Guild of copyeditors before nomination. It is not easy to write plain clear English, it needs hard work. I suggest that you go for a WP:Peer review if you wish to develop this article further. Passing as GA. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * OK, On hold for seven day for above issues to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, just a few more points with the prose, raised above. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed a few more issues with the prose. As mentioned above get help from the WP:Guild of copyeditors before nomination. It is not easy to write plain clear English, it needs hard work. I suggest that you go for a WP:Peer review if you wish to develop this article further. Passing as GA. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the changes, i made. -- Pedro J. the rookie 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Every thing is done. -- Pedro J. the rookie 00:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)