Talk:Super Mario 64 DS/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, sufficient enough to be listed as a good article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   A few bits of wording I disagree with, but this is more personal preference than actual problems with the prose. Good work, particularly on the critical response section

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Image placement isn't exactly inline with MOS:IMAGE, but the article is too short to really do anything about that.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   References all from reliable sources or primary sources, so they all check out. You may want to stick on a {{cite video game}} reference, filled in for the general game info, at the end of the plot section, though this is not a necessity.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The fair use rationales are rather lacking, you should bolster them up. You know why they are used, I know why they are used, but the pages themselves have rather wishy-washy descriptions. For instance, "illustrates the entire subject of the article" is wording that really doesn't mean anything in relation to box art, a description along the lines of aiding with identification purposes, providing readers with assurance they're at the right article, etc would be.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   No major flaws anywhere, the article has been promoted. Good work. -- Sabre (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)