Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem/1

Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Fire_Emblem:_Mystery_of_the_Emblem/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept. Concensus is to keep as GA. No issues have been identified for delisting the article. The1337gamer (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I would like to request a community reassessment because I have made a huge mistake during the reviewing of the article (along with others): not fact-checking. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm 100% confident that performed due diligence on fact checking and meeting WP:V. I recommend this GAR be closed. A review of the GAR opener's talk page and contributions will show a history of issues with GAN/GAR/FAC. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ...sigh. Every time I see Gamingforfun365 and a review process in the same phrase, I know it's going to be a hassle. Alright, here we go: reviewing.
 * Alright, 20 minutes later: I see no substantive problems with this article. There's always small grammar things that maybe I'd bring up in a review (Protodrake and I, uh, disagree a little bit on the usage of colons) and I'd like to see more (possibly mythical) reviews at the FA-level (and maybe a touch more in gameplay), but the prose is fine, the sources are fine, the spotchecks came back clean, and overall this comes across as the reviewer throwing a snit because people told him his article wasn't ready for FAC and his GAN reviews weren't stringent enough, and deciding to put them all up for GAR instead of just finishing the reviews. Keep. -- Pres N  21:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree that the prose would be better with fewer colons, in this case (though it doesn't help that Fire Emblem titles are also heavy on colons as a series). Also agree with what others have said above. Happy to review further if needed, just ping me.  czar  01:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ran the Reviewers tools:
 * Checked refs/external links: Fine
 * Checked copyvios: Fine
 * Checked disambig links: Fine. Shearonink (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Good article criteria:
 * 1. Well written (Yes)
 * A: Prose clear & concise/Yes B: Complies with MOS for lead, layout, etc. /Yes
 * 2. Verifiable with no original research (Yes)
 * A: List of references/Yes B: Inline citations are from reliable sources/Yes C: No original research/Yes D: No plagiarism/Yes
 * 3. Broad in its coverage (Yes)
 * A: Addresses main aspects of subject/Yes B: Stays focused on topic without devolving into trivia/Yes
 * 4. Neutral/Yes
 * 5. Stable/Yes
 * 6. Images (Yes)
 * A: Tagged with copyright status/Yes B: Images relevant to topic and have suitable captions/Yes
 * 7. Overall: Keep
 * I see no problems with this article that are terrible enough for it to lose its present GA status. Shearonink (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)