Talk:ToeJam & Earl/GA1

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article has been passed.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article has been passed.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article has been passed.

Prose/MoS
 * Inlines should generally follow punctuation marks, like the one after jazz-funk in Synopsis. There may be others scattered around.
 * Fixed. bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Can the publishers in the citations be wikilinked? Also, they generally shouldn't be italicized unless they're magazines or journals.
 * Done. bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a few left, fixed them myself. —   Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If the designer is going to be wikilinked in the infobox, he should also be wikilinked in the article proper.
 * I de-linked him in the infobox. He's probably notable but as there's numerous Greg Johnson articles, I'm not sure exactly what his article would eventually be called (it could be "game developer", "game designer" etc) bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "...as Sega were interested in innovative games and new mascots to compete with Nintendo." - Should probably be "Sega was".
 * You're right, fixed. bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "The due appeared in a spin-off light gun game..." - Due? Or "duo"?
 * Typo, fixed. bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Sega however conferred that they did not "understand" or "get" the game..." - Do both "understand" and "get" need to be here? They mean the same thing.
 * Removed "get". bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the article, outlets like GameSpot and IGN probably shouldn't be italicized, because they don't have a print version.
 * Fixed. bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous


 * The lead infobox should have a date for the Virtual Console rerelease.
 * Someone else has fixed this it seems. bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The second two external links are probably unnecessary.
 * Removed. bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A little nitpicky, but the lead seems just a little too large for the size of the article. The development info in particular seems unnecessary.
 * I cut the development info. bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I followed the release date discussion and "1991" is fine, but GameFAQs says there was also a Japanese release, which isn't mentioned here.
 * It's the same as the NA and European release dates and has the same problem: e.g. see here. bridies (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have placed the article on hold until these issues have been addressed. As you fix them, put "Done" under each one, or an explanation if you don't feel it needs to be changed. The article will be on hold for seven days or until all issues are addressed. Good work on the article! —   Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   11:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good, the article is now passed. —   Levi van Tine  ( t  –  c )   05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)