Talk:Pong/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA. It is a wonderful article. Your referencing seems good and the links are good. I have a few comments. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• You have too many common words wikilinked per Overlinking and underlinking
• The three fair use images are great, but you will need improved fair use rationale, (Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria), especially if you plan to go to FAC.
• I did a little copy editing, but feel free to change anything I did.
• I may add some more comments, but basically the article is good.
• Do you need a reference to say the general public associated pool with the Mafia?

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

• I'm not certain which links to remove, but I a few jumped out at me that I think might be candidates. Please let me know if you agree. I linked them at first because I figured they were either antiquated or regional terms that some readers may not know.
  • soldered
  • Pinball
  • Jukebox
  • Quarters
  • Patents
• FAC is the final stop, so I'll definitely beef up the FURs. Quick question though, do you think File:Roddick vs pong.png should be removed?
• The extra copy edits are always appreciated.
• The mafia information is in ref 13 (Ultimate History of Video Games).

Thanks again. Please let me know if you have any other comments. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

• Re File:Roddick vs pong.png, I am very very torn. It is an excellent example of how Pong has retained a relevance in today's world that an American Express ad would use Andy Roddick and Pong. But I suppose that the pic does not demonstrate anything that you cannot express in words.
• Re overlinking, yes, those are examples and more, like credit line, Wells Fargo, even Mafia.

—Mattisse (Talk) 04:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the image, as I don't think I could fill out an appropriate FUR.

I removed most of the links. I left line of credit because it's a business term not used in everyday conversation, and Wells Fargo because it's a business—I linked virtually every other business in the article like Magnavox, Gamasutra, and Nintendo.

(Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Well, of course, linking is a matter of opinion, but the other links were to businesses that had relevance to video gaming. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to see the fuss about the Roddick versus Pong image (here). It is a low quality screenshot and should have no WP:NFCC problems. I am tempted to put this back in with an improved rationale.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If you can come up with a good rationale, then please feel free. I was skeptical I could come up with one and figured it'd just be easier not to mess with it. But I'm no image expert. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 13:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

The FUR for File:Pong iv.jpg has been expanded. Every other image in the article is a free image on Commons. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:50, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 19:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)