The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2016 [1].

Super Mario Galaxy[edit]

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well this was unexpected. I first started work on this article in May when I went through my loft and found my old collection of ONM issues which spanned from 2006 to 2011. I remember my ten year old self reading through one of those issues and looking forward to this game. I've used a couple of those issues for this article, and my subsequent expansion and redevelopment of it carried on for a while. It has just gained GA status, and to be frank I think that this is ready for FAC. For a game considered "one of greatest" I tried making a comprehensive reception section, and even went overboard on development I think. JAGUAR  21:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Well that was certainly fast. Personally, I would have combed through the article a few more times before nominating it for FAC, but if you believe it's ready, then let's put it to the test.

I think the most important thing was to make sure that all of the sources verified the content in the article (something I used to struggle with), but I took extra liberties to make sure that I got it right while developing this for GA. In particular, I basically wrote the development and reception sections from scratch, so I found sourcing it quite easy as I had everything there (including the physical magazines). I know that comprehensiveness is more of an issue for the FA criteria, and minor issues on prose would definitely be tackled in the review. Anyway, I'll be happy to address these issues! JAGUAR  20:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead

  • Done, and I went with just 'third 3D game', although original tends to mean that it is the third main 3D game. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done, although it was released in Europe in 2016. JAGUAR  20:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think a game winning a BAFTA is very significant, and the article links to the charity itself. I've rephrased this slightly so hopefully it's clearer. JAGUAR  19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gameplay

  • Removed the bit about the engine. It's explained thoroughly in development. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure, I looked it up on its wiki and found that one of the domes had no boss for no particular reason. The reason for this isn't covered in any RS, although the manual mentions it. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I linked it. Seems better that way JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, it's a cursor. I should have been clearer. Fixed. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good catch, removed bee link and added others. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good catch, I see how that sounds confusing. Fixed. JAGUAR  11:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plot

Development

  • I've added the citations in the article, and should hopefully begin to expand the development using those sources you gave me. Thanks for that! JAGUAR  14:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I should remember to use Super Mario when mentioning the series. JAGUAR  14:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I couldn't even find him in the game's manual, so I removed that line. JAGUAR  15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kondo was technically in charge of the soundtrack although Yokota did the majority of the work. The source you gave me mentioned that he acted as sound supervisor, so I mentioned that. JAGUAR  15:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reception

  • Removed all, with the exception of the awards (for now?) JAGUAR  15:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rephrased. Yup I sent Black and White to GA ;-D Would I need to say what 97% equates to? The introduction states that the game received critical acclaim and I think that a reader could gather that 97% based on 74 reviews means that it was well received. I'm not too sure on this, so let me know if you want it rephrased further. JAGUAR  15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good idea. I tried mixing it up throughout. JAGUAR  15:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it still belongs in that paragraph as it covers all things audio-related, whereas putting it in another paragraph would seem even more out of place. To help matters, I rephrased the introduction to "The soundtrack and audio were well received by critics" and moved the lack of voice acting criticism to the end. Hope that helps. JAGUAR  16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Organisational purposes; I thought it looked weird having a 'listy' sentence in the same paragraph as one filled with prose. I can merge it if you think it's best. Is it really necessary to remove GameRankings here even if it's being used for awards and not an aggregate score? I'm not sure myself. JAGUAR  23:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Czar: I know that czar knows a lot more than me on when GameRankings should be used! Sorry to ping you, do you think it's OK if GameRankings should be used for citing awards and not aggregate scores I think that being the highest ranking game of the site should also be a significant mention. JAGUAR  15:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (Ping me anytime) I'd distinguish between when editors bestow an award and when an item tops a list, but that's editorial discretion. In this case, GameRankings didn't give a GOTY award, so I'd recast the sentence as journalists who named the game the best of the year and then treat the aggregators and any other list-making groups separately. Definitely worth including, but in a separate sentence and not as a GOTY "award". czar 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the record, I'm okay with what Czar suggested. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your input, I've moved the GameRankings mention to the end and separated it from the other GOTY awards. JAGUAR  16:00, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mainly because it was the only source which mentioned a date, I think.

Overall, a very solid article, but it does have a number of issues that must be addressed before I can support it. Also, do you think you could return the favor by reviewing the Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward FAC. It just needs one more support, and while it looks like David Fuchs will be doing a review, any additional comments always help. Alternatively, there's that No Russian Peer Review I've got up. Famous Hobo (talk) 04:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Trivial"? It was huge at the time. Here are more reliable sources. I am asking for one sentence in the article about it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because it was used on sites like Kotaku doesn't mean it isn't trivial. What does it add to the article? What does it do that will help improve the article? GamerPro64 19:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You seriously want to add a sentence about "U R MR GAY" in this article? I thought you were joking. It's pointless, trivial, and isn't worth mentioning. JAGUAR  17:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"I thought you were joking." That doesn't explain why you called me a "fucking moron". Several reliable third-party sources have described it. That makes it non-trivial. Also, I expected to see it mentioned in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:42, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where do you want this in the article, then? In the development section? Reception? And what is it going to look like? Upon release, some fans reported that the stars aligned on the game's cover art read out "U R MR GAY". I'm not putting a derogatory and infelicitous statement anywhere in this article, it doesn't belong here. It doesn't add any value. It's not worth it. It's trivial. It's almost like a joke. And another thing that's a joke is the fact that you had the nerve to oppose this FAC because I refused to put "U R MR GAY" in this article. Nevermind the fact that I've spent over a dozen hours of my time writing, researching and putting the effort into building this article up to an FA standard only to get derailed by somebody like you. I honestly thought you were trolling. Just because reliable sources cover it doesn't make it non trivial. Many reliable sources at WP:VG/S like IGN, Polygon and Kotaku also cover many trivial things like what the colour of a new Pokemon is going to be or a journalist's thoughts of a game's lore. It doesn't make it a pre-requisite reason to add something in an article. I thought that you were an intelligent person but the fact that your oppose read "It makes me sad that this glaring omission has spoilt an otherwise excellent article. I was expecting to read about this phenomenon in Wikipedia's article" made it look like you were tormenting. "U R MR GAY" is a glaring omission and a phenomenon, is it? JAGUAR  12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I don't condone Jaguar's personal attack-- Axl, your request for "U R MR GAY" was challenged with "why is it notable?" and "what does it add?" and you immediately jumped to opposing the FA nomination. This was an extremely petulant move. "U R MR GAY" was already determined to be coincidental and non-notable through previous consensus. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 15:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When multiple independent reliable sources describe a phenomenon, that makes it notable. Asking "what makes it notable?" after these references have been clearly linked is... not sensible.
I still believe that a sentence about this should be in the article, and I stand by my opposition. If the community consensus is against me, I shall of course submit to the consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Famous Hobo: thank you for your comments! I should have hopefully addressed everything above. JAGUAR  16:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments – Although I've never played this game, I've been known to take on a Mario platformer from time to time. I haven't read through much of the article yet, but here are a few initial thoughts:

  • Yep, 'instalment' with one 'l' is used everywhere outside the US JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So it would just read with different variations of gravity the central element of gameplay? I've removed "being", I hope it sounds OK. JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Giants2008: I agree, I don't think it's worth mentioning in the first place. Anyway, thank you for your comments! I've addressed all of your points above. JAGUAR  14:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Development: "desired that one its distinguishing features" needs "of" after "one", I reckon.
  • Added, I think that was a mistake. JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I doubt that gravity needs a link, since that is such a basic concept.
  • The grammar in "Iwata noted an increasing number of consumers to give up during a video game" doesn't seem to be that great. Maybe try "giving up" in the middle?
  • Shouldn't a 1-Up link be somewhere in the gameplay section instead, where its first mention is?
  • "and devised ways on how they should incorporate an idea into the game and make it the most entertaining." The beginning of this bit is a little wordy, and the "most entertaining" part doesn't make sense (most entertaining what). How about "and devised ways to incorporate an idea into the game and make it entertaining (as entertaining as possible?)" instead, or some variant of that?
  • I went with your suggestion, but added "more entertaining" at the end. JAGUAR  21:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove "the" from "that the Super Mario Galaxy's co-operative mode".
  • Music: Minor, but refs 28 and 35 could be reversed to numerical order.
  • Super Mario Bros. has a double period at the end. You just need the one from the game's title.
  • The Super Mario Bros. title has a full stop in itself, but I removed it anyway as I know it will only cause confusion with more readers. I thought Nights into Dreams... was bad enough. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I still see this one in the article. It's in the second paragraph of Music, in case there was another one I didn't notice. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Didn't spot that, removed. Thanks. JAGUAR  22:06, 21 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If we don't have a Donkey Kong Jungle Beat link earlier, please consider adding one here.
  • There was already one in the development section JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reception: Super Mario Sunshine probably doesn't need the link, since there was one earlier.
  • Same for Super Mario 64.
  • "The gameplay ... were also praised." "were" → "was". That word is referring to the gameplay itself, not the specific elements I skipped over; therefore it should be in singular tense. If it was "gameplay element" or similar, then you could get away with a plural.
  • Fixed. A mistake on my part. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sequel: Remove "the" before Famitsu.
  • Add "was" before "originally called Super Mario Galaxy More". Giants2008 (Talk) 20:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Giants2008: thanks for the review! I've addressed all of your comments. And sorry for the delay, I've been having internet problems lately. JAGUAR  16:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support – The article seems to be comprehensive for its field, and I'm satisfied with the writing after the above fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from ThomasO1989[edit]

I've got more comments on the way, but I can finish those up later tonight or this weekend.

Gameplay

  • Thanks, I went with all of your suggestions. Not sure if "missions" are applicable for the genre of this game but it sounds better that way. JAGUAR  13:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Cut and rephrased. I hope I got this right. JAGUAR  13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it sounds formal? I changed them anyway, with the exception of "secondly" (I think that should be fine). JAGUAR  13:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Probably not, so I cut down on a few. JAGUAR  13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Plot

This section could use some trimming. Not that it's overly long, it just seems a bit wordy, like it's describing certain cutscenes in more detail than what is necessary. I can help out with this one if you'd like.

That would be appreciated! I don't think it's too long, in fact I think it's just about right for a game like this since it's not plot-heavy. Anyway, I'll try and cut it down slightly. JAGUAR  13:54, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Development

My issues with this section stem from certain points being presented a bit haphazardly... it could use some re-arranging. There is also many passive sentences.

  • The "spin" is only activated through shaking the Wii Remote, not the Nunchuk? JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To clarify, the player can actually shake either controller to activate Mario's spin, not just the Wii Remote.-- ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think that they're important as they display key factors of the gameplay/development and show the reader what the developer's focus was. The top image shows a galaxy and the bottom image shows a spherical planetoid, with both featuring prominently throughout the article. I'd prefer to keep them, but it would be a shame to lose them. JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't agree with this. I don't think a picture of outer space is necessary to show that the developer's focus was on space anymore than Super Mario Sunshine needs a picture of water, or Pikmin a picture of a garden. The "spherical planetoid" is just a panoramic image, not an actual planetoid. It would make more sense to include them if these exact pictures inspired the gameplay, art, or story. A good example is the picture of "The Swing" used in the article Tangled, since the artist's work was actually used as a direct reference. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You make some good points, so I removed the images from development. JAGUAR  20:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do think they can be merged into a subsection, "Design", like what is done with Music. Some information could also be cut or condensed. I can write up a draft in my sandbox and present it for comments. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A "Design" subsection before the music section? I'll try something in a minute. I'm not sure if it would its chronological order. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Music

  • Thank you! I went with that. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ThomasO1989: thank you for your review! I've tried to address everything but I didn't understand a couple of your points, such as merging the level design paragraph into the first and the "spin" attack sentence, as the attack itself is accomplished by shaking only one of the controllers, not both. I prefer to keep the images as they show significant symbolism, but I'll remove them if I must. Sorry for coming to this review late, as I've been very busy with RL as well as sorting out a grant I applied on Wikimedia. If you have more comments, I'll be happy to address them. Thanks again! JAGUAR  14:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyway good with the article, I really hope it becomes a FA. Also, if you have free time could you provide feedback to my own FAN? It's a bit inactive. Cheers.

@Tintor2: thank you for the comments! I promise to take a look at your FAC soon, I've been held up with other matters lately. I have addressed everything you mentioned above. I've archived the more important references, and sourced some parts of the plot via the manual. JAGUAR  14:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well then, now you have my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review[edit]

I'll be doing the source review @Jaguar:. It'll take a bit of time but everything seems well. I would appreciate it if you do the source review for Allen Walker.Tintor2 (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you so much! I'll start the source review tomorrow. Making sure that the sources confirm the article's prose is easy but takes a while. JAGUAR  20:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll let it support or pass (it's my first time dealing with FA...) this review since all sources are reliable and are used well such as when quotes are used. However, I would recommend removing the GameRankings' cheats since that while is reliable, the cheats are provided by random users.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the source review, Tintor! I'm so relieved that I wrote the majority of this from scratch, as that way I can be sure everything is sourced properly and not have it struggle like my earlier FACs. Anyway, I've removed the GameRanking cheats. 13:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: just checking if there's anything else needed for this nom? Source check is done, and the prose comments above have all been addressed. It's just that I hope to get this one done a bit quicker in stark contrast to last time! JAGUAR  11:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I know you pinged them both last month but I'd like to see again if we can't confirm from Famous Hobo and ThomasO1989 that they're satisfied with responses/actions re. their comments. Failing that we may need another pair of eyes, but let's see how we go... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ThomasO1989 and Famous Hobo: do you have anything more to add? It's just that I'm really anxious to see this out of the way! If not, don't worry. JAGUAR  16:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just left messages for both of the above for confirmation if they're happy with their points being addressed, although I can't think of anything else. JAGUAR  14:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte[edit]

I hope this is the correct spot to put my section, if not, feel free to move it. . I haven't read any of the other comments by other users, so if I repeat something, my apologies.

Gameplay
  • I'm sure it means matter, but you're right. I've changed this to "orbiting structures", as I think that's the best way to describe it as in-game they appear as nonsensical platforms. JAGUAR  11:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the sentence explains it, a Grand Star is needed proceed to the next dome. But let me know if you want it rephrasing/elaborating somehow. JAGUAR  11:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I guess that's fine, but if you wanted to elaborate, I guess you could write something like: "which then gives the player access to the next dome via acquiring a collectable called a Grand Star". Not the most perfect sentence, but it's a start (if you wanted to elaborate). Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks, that sounds better so I went with that. I'm sure that some readers won't know it's a collectable. JAGUAR  14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks, I went with your suggestion. Yep Mario is the sole playable character throughout the game before the player gets all 120 stars. JAGUAR  11:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll be able to take another look tomorrow. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Anarchyte! So far all done. JAGUAR  11:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jaguar: I've responded to one comment above. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jaguar: Here are some more comments regarding the gameplay section and its subsections:

Hope these additional comments help! I'll be back in an hour or so. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I'm pretty sure that was one of the worst games of CS that I've ever played, but I'm back. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks, I changed the latter to "which has had appearances in varying forms throughout the Super Mario franchise" for unfamiliar readers. JAGUAR  14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That does sound a bit confusing to be honest. I've rephrased this to "Mario's health and air supply can be restored by collecting coins, or through touching bubbles if underwater". JAGUAR  14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that's the end of my review of the gameplay section. If you'd like me to take a look at the reception, ping me . Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anarchyte: thanks for the comments so far! I've addressed everything. Sorry to hear about the CSGO experience. If you're willing to go through the reception section (which I think would be the last as the development section has been covered already), then I'll be more than happy to get back to this as I think that's all that is left to be done here. JAGUAR  14:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did a full review of my article, so I'll take a look at the reception. Anarchyte (work | talk) 3 November 2016, 05:35 (UTC)
Reception
  • Changed to "astound", though I understand that the reviewer is trying to say that the game's large scale levels and good graphics would awestruck the player. JAGUAR  12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Removed "next gen" and just left "reincarnation", seems much better this way. JAGUAR  12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Added (never actually done that before) JAGUAR  12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree, it's always good to use different synonyms to mix things up. I've changed this to "declared". JAGUAR  12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Last "that" has been exterminated! Thanks. JAGUAR  12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope this helps. I'm off to go lose another game of Hearthstone. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anarchyte: thank you so much for the helpful review! I've definitely addressed everything now. Sorry about the "that" repetition in the reception, I'll be careful to avoid repeating it in the future. JAGUAR  12:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anarchyte: it only took me an hour but I finally managed to archive all of the links, with the sole exception of one GameSpot link as there weren't any archived versions available, but that should be OK. JAGUAR  22:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jaguar: With all this done, I'll throw in my support. I have no other requests except for a |deadurl=no to be added to every live reference. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again! I've just added the "|deadurl=no" to all of the non-dead links. JAGUAR  12:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ian Rose: just successfully addressed a new set of comments. Would there be anything else needed for this nom before it's ready? JAGUAR  12:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: , ping JAGUAR  23:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I haven't responded before now, Jaguar... Although there's some discussion of the images above, I didn't notice a review re. the licensing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought that all the images are non-free screenshots? Ah, just realised that the picture of Yoshiaki Koizumi is actually a real life photograph so I'll check it out... JAGUAR  17:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but we'll still need someone other than yourself as nominator to verify licensing -- the usual thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anarchyte: I'm so sorry to bother you again. Would you mind quickly looking over the licensing of the images? Or if it doesn't seem right to ask someone to do two reviews in a FAC, I'll ask someone else. This article has three images so I'm sure it won't take long! JAGUAR  12:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review

I think you need to provide WP:ALT text for the images. - FrB.TG (talk) 13:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FrB.TG: added! JAGUAR  14:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! @Ian Rose: I have reviewed the images - if a prose review is needed please ping me, although this seems to have had a lot of commentaries on that one. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've scanned the prose myself for some 'expressions to watch' and tweaked accordingly, so with the other reviews I think that about does it, tks FrB. Jaguar, I'm going to promote but there are several duplinks that you can probably do without, pls review/action (if you need a link to the dupcheck script, let me know). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for that! I've just removed all of the duplinks. JAGUAR  19:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More