Talk:Bubbles (video game)

Bubbles (video game) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 1, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Carlton Wilborn (2 participants)
Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants)
Rat Race (video game) (7 participants)
Red Barrels (3 participants)
The Campaign Trail (Web Game) (25 participants)
TheoTown (11 participants; relisted)
Old Grandma Hardcore (6 participants; relisted)
WePlay AniMajor (2 participants; relisted)
Zero Hour (video game) (6 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Fair use rationale for Image:Marquee.png

Image:Marquee.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Bubbles.png

Image:Bubbles.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bubbles (video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Prose is a little choppy in some sections.

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Alright, after reviewing this article it's pretty solid and informative, but there's one thing holding me up on it: the prose. The way some sentences are feels too choppy, especially in the lead and even development and reception sections, making the article somewhat difficult to wade through. A light copyedit will probably solve the issue, it just needs it to flow better. Other than that no complaints about the article: it's another informative piece by you, which is always a good read.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave it a copy edit sweep, but admittedly I didn't change much. If that didn't address your concern, I can try to get some one else to give it a look. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Alright we look good to go, passing now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]