Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ToeJam & Earl/archive2

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 Karanacs 21:07, 27 September 2009 [1].

ToeJam & Earl[edit]

Nominator(s): bridies (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review/ToeJam & Earl/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. Failed the first time, largely because of prose issues. The article has now had a thorough copy edit/peer review here, so I am now renominating. bridies (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Conditional~~ Support - A very enjoyable article to read! I have a few minor comments though. In "Development", why is "former collaborators of Johnson's" in quotation marks? According to the reference, that's a fact and doesn't need quotation marks. Under "Legacy", when you say that ToeJam & Earl became a mascot alonside Sonic, do you mean the characters alongside the character Sonic or the game alongside the game Sonic? You might include some negative quotations from Eurogamer to balance the many positive quotations from reviewers in the section. My only real issue is that the article is only 19K. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 14:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrased "former collaborators of Johnson's". The mascot thing refers to the actual characters: I removed the italics to clarify this. bridies (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done: clarified "action adventure" to "action adventure game". bridies (talk) 10:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can think of no way in which it does not meet the FA criteria. While I did work on the article as a copyeditor, I do not believe that voids my support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review No copyright issues with the images, but the image of the box lacks alt text. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Done; thanks. ~~The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images now have alt text. bridies (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. I fixed one minor typo. Eubulides (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The flow of this article is really good. The lead is very well written. I appreciate how the reception section is chronological. I really like the legacy section. Many articles end abruptly but this section is basically serving as a conclusion which helps to brings closure. It's the follow rather than the lead. References look good, images are fair use... my only qualm is this sentence -->"Identification of presents' contents is a central gameplay mechanic." The word play in this sentence is grammatically correct but it's loaded. I had to read it a couple of times. Maybe it's just me but I think it this could somehow be stated in simpler terms. Still, this sentence alone doesn't make me change my mind about the quality of this article. Again, support. Gbern3 (talk) 17:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Very well written article. --Carioca (talk) 00:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.