Talk:Wii U/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sp33dyphil (talk · contribs) 09:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After having a brief look at the article, I have decided to quick-fail the article. It fails to meet several GA criteria namely 1a, 2a, 3b and 6a.

There are numerous paragraphs and individual claims that have not been referenced. They can be found, for example, under "User interface", "Asymmetric gameplay" and "Loyalty programs" sections.
Not all the references are filled out. The References section needs a clean-up -- hence the tag.
File:Nintendo eShop logo (new).png and File:Miiverse Logo.png are non-free media files -- they belong in their respective articles.
A lot of the information under "Software and services" can and should be condensed. For example, the sentence "However, such delays have not been reported by users. From February 2013 the players under the age of 12 years are no longer allowed to directly send or receive friend requests within Miiverse." and the next sentence found in "Miiverse" are not strictly about the Wii U.
The lead is too short. According to WP:LEAD, articles that have more than 30,000 characters should have three to four paragraphs in the lead. This article has almost 50% more (43,200 characters) than the recommendation yet it only has three summarizing paragraphs.
"The Wii U is the first Nintendo console to support high-definition graphics, capable of producing video output up to 1080p". I presume that the second clause is an extension of the first -- the way it is written tells me they are unrelated.

--They are indeed related, but 1080p is not the only output accepted as ¨HD¨, a 720i output would also qualify. I believe that specifying ¨up to 1080p¨ is valid. - Carlosfer2201 (talk) 14:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are only some of the issues that this article has. Because the issues above are quite significant, and I do not think they can be addressed adequately in a reasonable amount of time. The best course of action in this case would be for me to quick-fail this nomination while you address these issues. Perhaps in four to six weeks' time the article would be improved enough for it be re-nominated for GA status. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 09:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

If I may add something: the "Games" section needs work. The second paragraph which addresses the games released/being released for the Wii U in 2013 in particular needs work. It seems to indicate that neither The Wonderful 101 or LoZ:WWHD are out yet. And unlike the paragraph about the Wii U's launch games, the second paragraph doesn't mention any third party games being released, such as Batman: Arkham Origins or Watch Dogs. Dexter111344 (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]