Talk:All your base are belong to us/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 16:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Will review this, should not take longer than a few days at most. —Kusma (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Section by section prose and content review

• Lead: Why do you have a dozen citations in the lead? There doesn't seem to be a strong reason to have any.
• Mention that the Sega Mega Drive is called the Genesis
• What is "EDM"?
• In the body, the music video isn't posted on Something Awful, but Newgrounds.
• The body starts quite abruptly with the transcript. Some "background" should come first (try to have the body work without the lead). What is meant by some other examples of text?
• History: The first references could be seen in 1999 and the early 2000s when an animated GIF of the scene references to what? what scene?
• The Laziest Men on Mars redirects to AYBABTU, not a helpful link.
• The Jeffrey Ray Roberts sentence is a bit long. Why do you include the years of birth and death? They do not seem relevant here. The sentence also fails verification, it is not in the Time reference.
• user Bad_CRC user of what? make it clearer that this is a username?
• widespread media attention why that many references? Better to have one that says "widespread attention" than to demonstrate widespread attention by many links.
• There is a lot more history in the sources that you don't even touch, for example in VG247, any reason why?
• The poor translation could be explained earlier, perhaps as background; it doesn't fit so well where it is.
• The meme was addressed by Toaplan's Tatsuya Uemura (the game's programmer and composer) and Masahiro Yuge (composer) in interviews during the 2010s. He Better not to put the information in parentheses. Who is "He"? You just said it was two people.
• The anniversaries seem to me to be "mentions in media", not "history".
• The "Mentions in media" section seems totally random and disconnected. What is special about the 2004 NCSU thing that you mention it twice (once in "History", once here)? Why don't we get Musk's "all our patent are belong to you"? Nothing between 2006 and 2019?
• AOC: yes, she used that on Twitter. Was there any response to it that explains why her use of the phrase is significant?

General comments and GA criteria checkbox

• There is very little about the original video, making the article seem quite incomplete. Nothing about the many photoshops it was made from (in fact, the US-50 image would be believable as a screenshot from the video); the music contains more text than voiceovers of "all your base are belong to us", ... There are reliable sources for this, for example [1] [2] [3]
• There is nothing about the other memes and catchphrases from Zero Wing: "Somebody set up us the bomb" was a widely used quote back in the 2000s, and "For great justice" still is.
• That the game has been re-released on Steam first without the iconic scene but it was later added as a patch seems quite a large omission [4].
• The first of the video links is broken.

Sorry, I don't think this is close to being a GA (but I did enjoy the trip down memory lane; I think I heard about this somewhere on Slashdot in 2001 or 2002, and Slashdot was full of All Your Base jokes back then). The lead doesn't fit the body, the writing is made up of choppy short paragraphs that aren't connected well, and you barely touch the flash video that went viral back in the day. There are verification issues, but there clearly are enough sources out there (and used in the article, but not exploited properly) to verify 90% of the KnowYourMeme article, which (while not classified as a reliable source per WP:KNOWYOURMEME) currently seems superior to the Wikipedia one. I hope my comments will be useful for a rewrite. —Kusma (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.