Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:37, 20 March 2008.

Super Smash Bros. Melee

 * previous FAC (04:36, 22 January 2008)

Self-nom: Since the last FAC, the article's been expanded, copy-edited, and all disputes resolved. I believe that it meets the criteria. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Restart, old nom. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 20:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Article is very well written, with additional concerns by others addressed since the original nomination, I maintain my previous support. Hello32020 (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * I note on WP:RSN that discussion is ongoing about the use of Magic Box as a reliable source.
 * What makes http://www.joystiq.com/ a reliable source?
 * Same for http://kotaku.com/.
 * Web links checked out fine with the little linkie tool the second time I did it. NOt sure what was up with the timeout. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "(Hey, I play mostly on my PC or my XBo360, I am not clued into Nintendo fandom...)". This is most disappointing. It's never too late, save yourself and buy a Wii;) Anywho, I think that I've addressed all of your concerns. For Kotaku and Joystiq, I can say that these two are considered reilable blog sources and are written by professional editors. I don't know if you want more proof for this. I didn't know about Mushroom Kingdom, so I just replaced it with a better one. Thanks for the comments. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  08:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, an explanation of what makes those sources reliable, per WP:V, is needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how one goes about proving reliability. Both Kotaku and Joystiq employ professional staff to write the blogs&mdash;so these aren't forum members or randomers just writing the news. Kotaku and Joystiq cites it sources on the website. Now, if you look at the claim Kotaku is supporting, it is supported with a transcript from an interview with Nintendo developers. So besides anything, nothing is dependent on Kotaku themselves as it's only a transcript. For Joystiq, the first citation also links to the actual primary source of the tournament website. I have no doubts about the reliability of the source, but it could be changed to the primary website if that would make people feel more comfortable. I could do this again for the second Joystiq source too. It isn't really required, but it's probably best to link the source of the blogs for people who aren't convinced about their reliability. Thanks. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, to be safe, the Joystiq sources have been replaced with the sources which corroborate them on the page. I don't see how there could be issues with the Kotaku source, so eveything should be resolved now. Thanks. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  07:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support igordebraga ≠ 01:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per my commentary and copyediting and everything in the old nom. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 04:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * support - MOJSKA   666  (msg) 08:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - everything looks good, very informative. Guest9999 (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Highly infomative, neutral, captures all the basics of what a video game article should have. All the statements are sourced, so everything looks good. Pre  ston  H  01:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Very informative and well handled.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Very comprehensive and well-written. I'd prefer if the soundtrack was organized into a collapsible table like in Final Fantasy Tactics, but that's hardly a reason to reject the article as FA.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydrokinetics12 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. About that, this was the original way, but two users complained that it look differently on different browsers, and that it wouldn't save much space anyway. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  15:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. It's much better.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Midway upon life's journey... 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason why the EGM review score is not included? --- RockMFR 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No clue, but I'm personally wondering why no one's closed this FAC yet, been nearly a month. --

Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 03:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean here, Rock. Is there any reason it should be? Like, as it being a necessity. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  07:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. Good job guys. Noj r (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.