Talk:Super Smash Bros. (video game)

; Archives
	Archive 1;

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Super Smash Bros. (video game) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

Super Smash Bros. (video game) has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Super Smash Bros. (video game) is part of the Super Smash Bros. series series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 18, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 21, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
April 29, 2007	Good article reassessment	Delisted
February 3, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
May 10, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
June 22, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
July 25, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Good article

Video games GA‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

GA

This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was a past project collaboration.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

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)[reply]

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)

GA nom

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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:

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.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Talk:Super Smash Bros./GA1

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, giggy _(:O) 05:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]