Talk:The Wizard of Oz (1993 video game)/GA1
Appearance
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MuZemike (talk · contribs) 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
First GA review in many years! In any case, there are some things that stand out while reading the article and looking at the prose that I have outlined below in my review. They need to be addressed before I'm comfortable passing for GA.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources):
c (OR):
d (copyvio and plagiarism):
In the "Development and Release" section, "it ultimately was never released" is unreferenced.
- a (reference section):
- Uh....... yeah. The fact that no other citation exists of the NES game actually being released is a citation itself it was never released. It's pretty frequent for articles about projects that went nowhere to do this. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects):
b (focused):
- Good amount of coverage for both in the 1990s (print, which is hard to find) and comtemporary.
- Thanks! It was tricky. You can use Internet Archive, retromags and MobyGames to look for online showings of print sources for video games easier. However, at the same time, I can't tell how many times results come up that isn't coverage of the game you're looking for but just a fricking listing at a store. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Good amount of coverage for both in the 1990s (print, which is hard to find) and comtemporary.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
- GA #1 issues
- You have "Dorthy" and "Dorothy" throughout the article; I think the latter is the correct spelling from looking at the The Wizard of Oz (1939 film) article.
- Fixed, now they all say Dorothy HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- MOS:SERIAL - Some places you use the serial comma, but in many others you don't. Stick with only one usage (or lack thereof) throughout the entire article.
- Fixed. Now all list sentences with three or more items have serial commas. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- "These displays can be de-activated by pressing the right button." - Is it "right" on the controller or the "R" button? Be more specific to avoid confusion.
- Fixed. It's the R button. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Some of your bundled citations (where you have multiple citations together) are out of numerical order.
- I believe you're referring to those EGM cites about the NES game listed as being in development. It actually is all in the proper order; it's just that issue 44 isn't cited, and that's because it didn't include a directory of games being developed unlike those other issues, which listed an NES version of the Wizard of Oz. Thus, there's no EGM no. 44 cite. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- What I meant was here, which I went ahead and rearranged. --MuZemike 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I believe you're referring to those EGM cites about the NES game listed as being in development. It actually is all in the proper order; it's just that issue 44 isn't cited, and that's because it didn't include a directory of games being developed unlike those other issues, which listed an NES version of the Wizard of Oz. Thus, there's no EGM no. 44 cite. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Johnny Reynolds of The Things and Brett Alan Weiss were baffled..." Brett Alan Weiss of whom?
- AllGame. I originally didn't do a "[critic] of" way of presenting him for fear of repetitive prose, but the source is specified now. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Good, but I made one more small tweak here. --MuZemike 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- AllGame. I originally didn't do a "[critic] of" way of presenting him for fear of repetitive prose, but the source is specified now. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Overall
On hold So that the above issues can be addressed. --MuZemike 17:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- @MuZemike: All comments have been addressed or responded to. HumanxAnthro (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Looks all good on my side.
Passed. --MuZemike 01:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- Looks all good on my side.