Talk:Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Was going to review this article sooner but real life got in the way. Should have this within a day or two. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

• "The two games respectively represent the fourth and fifth installments[8]" - just wondering, why is there a citation here? Should it be here unless it's controversial?

• I thought at first it had been placed there because both had been released simultaneously and there was some edict from Nintendo on which was considered to be the "first" of the two, but that wouldn't make sense since they were released separately. Removed; thanks. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• "Both versions have sold quickly, with the 3DS version selling over 3.22 million copies as of October 2014" - what about the Wii U version?

• It's much fewer (though this is predictable given the Wii U's much smaller owner base), but I've added it anyway. Tezero (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• "which allows players to create personalised stages" - personalized

• Done. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The new characters are the Wii Fit Trainer" - the female trainer? Or is the male trainer in the game too?

• Both. Done. Tezero (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• "In late August 2014, a series of allegedly leaked photos and videos of the game's 3DS version were uploaded to the Internet, revealing several unannounced fighters" - is this sourced in the next sentence? If so shouldn't at least one citation be here?

• Yes; the citations at the end there confirm all of the information. However, the "Characters" subsection of Gameplay was a weird place to put that, so I've moved it to Development. Tezero (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The Wii U version has received critical acclaim" - critical acclaim for the Wii U version was not mentioned in the lead

• The lead says they both received positive reviews; I don't think it's necessary to specify which got better ones there since it's a pretty minor difference. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

References

• Ref 10 is dead, it redirects to Nintendo of Europe

• Huh? Neither ref 10 nor any of the surrounding ones are to Nintendo-Europe. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strange, the toolserver said it was dead. Hmm maybe it was just me ☯ Jaguar ☯ 15:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ref 74 is dead

• Fixed. It was just an issue of ommitting the final slash; weird. Tezero (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just a note here, Ref 89 requires a subscription

• Fixed. Tezero (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

On hold

So I got carried away and did the review straight away. Nothing major at all, in fact this is a well written article very deserving of becoming GA. It makes a change reviewing a good Good Article for once (*ahem*). Once those minor concerns are addressed we'll take another look at this, so I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days even though something tells me it doesn't need that. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar, I think it should be done now; what do you think? Tezero (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Close - promoted

Thanks for addressing them, Tezero. The article now meets the GA criteria, it's well written, broad, and generally just enjoyable to read. Now all Super Smash Bros articles are GA, two of them are FA. This looks like a real FA candidate too. Now this out of the way, I can get back to playing some Alpha Sapphire... ☯ Jaguar ☯ 15:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)