Talk:Goomba/GA1

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Goomba/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Goomba/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This section should only be modified by reviewer(s).

:GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.
2. :a (prose): {{GAList/check|y}} b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y}}
3. ::
4. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
5. :a (references): {{GAList/check|n}} b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}} c (OR): {{GAList/check|?}}
6. ::
7. It is broad in its coverage.
8. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}} b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
9. ::
10. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
11. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
12. ::
13. It is stable.
14. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
15. ::
16. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
17. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}} b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
18. ::
19. Overall:
20. :Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|n}}
21. ::

Regarding the failing points:

1. 1(b): the references should follow the same format. The article has a plain URL reference and some other aren't properly formatted. {{done-t}}
2. 1(b): the first paragraph of Reception and promotion section has 8 references stacked together, which seems to be an overkill. Consider using Notes section for grouping such clusters of references when needed. {{done-t}}
3. 2(a): the article has a citation needed tag since December 2009. {{done-t}}
4. 2(a): one of the references has a dead link tag since November 2010. {{done-t}}
5. 2(a): external links checker reveals problems with other references. {{done-t}}
6. 2(a): reference to Nintendo Power (currently #22) lacks "title" attribute.
7. 2(c): the lead and sections Concept and creation and Appearances seem to be insufficiently referenced. Some of the currently available references could be reused for this purpose.

Comments:

• Overall, solving these problems is a matter of several hours. But unless this is done, the article doesn't qualify for GA.
• The article mentions several similar enemies from other games. Though I'm not going to fail the GA on this particular item, I think it should note the corresponding enemy from SuperTux.
• I did all I could without dropping the status of reviewer. It would be nice if someone could step out to take care of the rest.

Feel free to discuss this all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)