Talk:Super Mario 3D Land/GA1

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 11:26, 10 August 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):
 * Perhaps state that the story - Bowser kidnapping Peach, and Mario tries to rescue her - is almost ever found in Mario games
 * You can simply write "allotted among the 16 worlds."
 * "The three Toads who helped Mario earlier on investigate the letter" - on investigating
 * "another photo is found with Peach in a Tanooki suit herself." - the herself is redundant
 * Overall, the article is in a good shape. The prose meets the criteria.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Ref 7 is blank and I also question the reliability of this site
 * Be consistent: "VideoGamesBlogger." or "Video Games Blogger"?
 * Single pages should be noted as "p." not "pp." ;)
 * Overall good
 * Ref 27 is dead
 * 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: I feel this meets the criteria very easily, but I am not sure if this will pass the FAC criteria. I think it needs a few copyeditings as I stumbled across phrases that could be better phrased. Good work overall! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall: I feel this meets the criteria very easily, but I am not sure if this will pass the FAC criteria. I think it needs a few copyeditings as I stumbled across phrases that could be better phrased. Good work overall! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comment : This article is currently Start-class. Normally, I would have had this article upgraded to C and B class before nominating for GA, so this seems a bit premature. But if it's truly GA quaility I have no qualms against it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally don't believe this article is GA quality. I already had to fix several errors. I think the Development section could be organized better (it mixes early development with when it was announced haphazardly) and it contains at least one contradiction. The article should be reviewed for C and B before being even considered for GA. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to clean up this section in the next few days or does it require more time? Of course, you are always welcome to withdraw this nomination, especially as you are a major contributor. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 17:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The development section is a whopping four paragraphs long. The "mixing of early development with when it was announced haphazardly" claim literally took 3 minutes to sort out, and the accusation of "contradictions" just needed some clarity in the writing. None of these issues, including what the class of the article is, are found over Good article criteria for a justification to quick fail an article. Infact, the fixing of those minor issues are what GA reviews are usually for. Bruce Campbell (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I do respect Thomas' comments however and if this nomination really does bother him so thoroughly, then fail the article. However, fail the article based on the quality of the article itself, which I believe is currently of GA status. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The issues presented within the review have been corrected I believe, thanks mostly to Thomas. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The aforementioned Blogger site is unreliable and should be replaced with a better source. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've gone and replaced both Blogger citations with a new Andriasang source and an existing Game Informer source. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will promote this article to GA status. Great work! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)