[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akitoshi Kawazu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four Unsourced Games

[edit]

@Dissident93: would you wish to keep helping me source our articles gameographies? If so, I present to you the four from this article I could not find any references for, and wish for a second opinion so we can source it or remove it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Akitoshi Kawazu/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 10:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): See below.
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): No issues.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): No issues.
    b (citations to reliable sources): Sources that were spot-checked supported their claims. Extensive use of print and non-English sources; some level of AGF for inaccessibility of the former and translation of the latter.
    c (OR): No issues.
    d (copyvio and plagiarism): No issues. Highest Earwig percent is 9.1%; analysis is just picking up in game titles.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): A biography of appropriate scope.
    b (focused): No issues.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias: No issues.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.: No issues.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): One image, licensed BY-SA 2.0.
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions): The photo is a bit awkward-looking, but that's just how our image policy goes. I was unable to find any higher-quality free images.

Overall:
Pass:

· · ·

Putting this and my other current review on 2O because I am clearly somewhere between grudgingly tolerated and actively unwanted on Wikipedia, and I should at least clear my head a bit and drop current obligations. I'm further into this review than the other, so notes to whoever picks this up: I was about to start an in-depth prose review, because a fair amount of the lead in particular caught my eye as wanting copyediting, but otherwise didn't have severe qualms with the article. Vaticidalprophet 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This review kind of... didn't, and I have no idea why Vaticidalprophet thinks anyone is against them, so I'll pick this up and review.