Talk:Super Smash Bros.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Super Smash Bros. article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Super Smash Bros. is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 00:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Good article Super Smash Bros. was one of the Everyday life good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article was previously selected for Gaming Collaboration of the week.
VG To-do:
Wikitendo logo This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of High priority within Nintendo for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Archived

Something seemed to be wrong with this page. Anything lower than the last GA nom of the archive did not show up on the table of contents.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I have added a Legacy Section

I have added a legacy section. The melee article has one so I thought, why not?--Smashbrosboy (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom

I have nominated this article for GA.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to this, and have began to review this article. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 00:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also made a few small edits (deleting stuff), I hope you don't mind.--Smashbrosboy (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Not at all...you certainly removed quite a bit of content! But, it seems like it reads better now, and anyway, Wikipedia is not a guide, and the former content was a bit guide-like. Well done. - Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 17:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for the compliment!--Smashbrosboy (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Status Awarded

Congratulations! This article has met the criteria for good articles sufficiently, and has been awarded good article status.

Here's a summary of my findings:

  1. The Good:
    1. Excellent grammar
    2. Good style; sections are in the right order.
    3. Very well sourced, for the most part.
    4. Content is brief and to the point, as all encyclopedia articles should be.
    5. Neutral point of view is maintained throughout the article.
    6. The article has been fairly stable, that is, there are no ongoing edit wars, and the content does not change severely from day to day.
    7. Images are of very high quality; all with good captions and fair-use rationales.
  2. The Not so Good:
    1. My only real beef with this article is the Reception section. It seems to be quite short-coming, although it does maintain a very good neutral point of view. With the right sources, though, this could certainly be improved.

All in all, the editors of this article are to be commended. You have made a very good article here. A job well done by all of you.

Your friend in editing, - Robert Skyhawk (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] about Super_Smash_Proto.jpg

I have two problems with this image, one, there is no fair use rationale on it at this time, and two, how the image is currently placed in this article, making the column of text much smaller then I think it should be. Logan GBA (talk) 04:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That image is not needed. I have deleted it.Smashbrosboy 03:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scam ad at the bottom of page

I'm trying to remove it, but it doesn't show up at all. Any ideas?

A.J. Comix (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA delisted

This is nowhere near GA status. The prose throughout is average, and most of the sections (except gameplay) are short and nowhere near the broad level expected. Reception, especially, is unsatisfactory. Needs a fair bit of expansion before it can be GA. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, it has just been 3 months and a delisting. I fully agree on why it has been delisted though. This article was in much better shape in February.--Smashbrosboy 02:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Not much has changed in Feburary. I've changed my Feature Topic hopes in a different direction. The FAC failure of Brawl and this article's delisting is a big blow. At least Melee made it to the front page...--haha169 (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to work on it as soon as I get time.--Smashbrosboy 02:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)