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

Howdy - I'm Teancum and I'll be your reviewer for this GAN. Typically speaking I will start to post any issues I find, and it may take me a few days of looking over until I feel the review is complete. However, once I start posting issues feel free to start working on them. I'll notify you when I feel I'm done reviewing, and once issues get resolved I'll update the GA-Class criteria as seen below. Once we're all green I'll promote it.

For further detail, see WP:WIAGA

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b ( MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

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:

Given the quality of this article, I'll be tackling some FAC criteria that would be easy to cover now -- little stuff like links and logistics.

• quick find-- a few disambigs and four dead links (all from mixnmojo.com)
  •  Done disambig links. -- Sabre ( talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply
  •  Not done dead links. There's nothing I can do about the dead links, Mixnmojo had a hacking incident and lost all its data. The pages I need aren't in the web archive and I can't find the information needed elsewhere. Keeping deadlinks is unconventional, but neither GAN or FAC criteria make any reference to links, so I'm following what Wikipedia:LINKROT#Keeping_dead_links says on the matter. LINKROT also notes "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:V does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line". In accordance with LINKROT, the dead links have been tagged as such, but I really can't do any more unless mixnmojo restores their database. -- Sabre ( talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• I'm fine with that. If there's no other way to get the information then that's fine. -- Teancum ( talk) 12:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• File:Morgan and Guybrush.jpg doesn't have alt text in the article, but all the other images do. Normally I don't require it anymore, but since all the other images have it, might as well knock that out now.
  •  Done -- Sabre ( talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• The Monkey Island Wikia link feels a little weak to be "substantial" per WP:ELMAYBE. If you have a convincing argument I'm willing to bend on it, otherwise it needs to go.
  •  Done It was included to placate the fans, but that's hardly a convincing argument. -- Sabre ( talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply
• Ref #13 "Q: What's another word for pirate treasure?" and ref #34 "Nintendo Offers Downloadable Halloween Fun from Axe to Zombies" have a different date format than the rest
  •  Done -- Sabre ( talk) 10:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

• In the lead - "The game is the fifth entry in the Monkey Island series, nearly a decade after the previous installment" -- use "previous installment" as a wikilink to the previous game.
  •  Done-ish, I hate wikilinking words in that fashion, where the words linked don't correspond to the article title being linked. So instead of "the previous installment" I've used "the previous installment, Escape from Monkey Island". -- Sabre ( talk) 12:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Y PASS - I found no more issue with the article, and you've kept up with what I found. I would recommend this to go to FAC right away! Nice work. Reviewer: Teancum ( talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC) reply

Thanks mate! -- Sabre ( talk) 16:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC) reply