I will be conducting a more detailed review as part of this process but I have initial concerns about good article criteria 1b (specifically with the LEAD), 3b (specifically some of the sources not being RS), issues around criteria 6 (copyright status of images used), and possibly criteria 5 (this article might not yet be stable). More detailed comments will be left below. Pinging @ Vami IV, Kung Fu Man, DannyMusicEditor, and Nova Crystallis: as others who might have review comments or otherwise be interested in this community GAR. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
not confident in your ability to assess the article" which is therefore suggested to be a community rather than individual GAR. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
which appears as Nintendo's Mario franchise character Bowser transformed to resemble another character, Peach., does not make clear to a broad audience who Bowsette is - I wouldn't have understood it, despite being a video game player, without having read the rest of the article which is somewhat against the conventions of what is desired.
Journalists took notice of the trend and were surprised by its longevity- I'm not sure longevity is the right word considering Bowsette is like two weeks old.
I have a lot of issues with this article.
First, I don't believe that the article is stable. The most recent 50 edits took place within the past 4 days. In that time, there have been improvements, reverts, page protection, and an AFD nomination.
Beyond that, I have issues with the prose and the article structure. There's some pretty garbled grammar in places.
"Bowsette quickly rose in popularity internationally, with related hashtags trending in English and Japanese appearing on Twitter." -- This is all over the place. Should probably be along the lines of "...with related hashtags in English and Japanese trending on Twitter".
"Typically portrayed as a light-skinned blonde woman with horns, fangs, and a spiked collar with matching armbands, though there is some variation." -- This is a sentence fragment.
The article structure is probably my biggest problem, in that there really isn't enough structure. Far too much of this reads as just stating fact after unrelated fact. "This is what this person said. And this is what another person said." and so on. For example, the third paragraph of the "Reception" section starts off by talking about how the concept inspired gender-swapped fan art of other Nintendo characters, and ends up talking about copyright law, which is a jarring transition that makes the article hard to follow. Or there's the "Background" section, which goes well outside the scope of just discussing background and ends up mentioning a fan convention. As someone who wasn't previously familiar with the subject of the article, I had to read it multiple times to be able to take everything in.
Finally, I have concerns over copyright for the included images, especially the second one. I am not especially familiar with copyright policy, so I say this with little confidence, but I am not sure that the fair use claims really stand up. The usage rationale for the second image states that the article as a whole is dedicated to the discussion of the work, which is clearly not true. Lowercaserho ( talk) 00:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I will be conducting a more detailed review as part of this process but I have initial concerns about good article criteria 1b (specifically with the LEAD), 3b (specifically some of the sources not being RS), issues around criteria 6 (copyright status of images used), and possibly criteria 5 (this article might not yet be stable). More detailed comments will be left below. Pinging @ Vami IV, Kung Fu Man, DannyMusicEditor, and Nova Crystallis: as others who might have review comments or otherwise be interested in this community GAR. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
not confident in your ability to assess the article" which is therefore suggested to be a community rather than individual GAR. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
which appears as Nintendo's Mario franchise character Bowser transformed to resemble another character, Peach., does not make clear to a broad audience who Bowsette is - I wouldn't have understood it, despite being a video game player, without having read the rest of the article which is somewhat against the conventions of what is desired.
Journalists took notice of the trend and were surprised by its longevity- I'm not sure longevity is the right word considering Bowsette is like two weeks old.
I have a lot of issues with this article.
First, I don't believe that the article is stable. The most recent 50 edits took place within the past 4 days. In that time, there have been improvements, reverts, page protection, and an AFD nomination.
Beyond that, I have issues with the prose and the article structure. There's some pretty garbled grammar in places.
"Bowsette quickly rose in popularity internationally, with related hashtags trending in English and Japanese appearing on Twitter." -- This is all over the place. Should probably be along the lines of "...with related hashtags in English and Japanese trending on Twitter".
"Typically portrayed as a light-skinned blonde woman with horns, fangs, and a spiked collar with matching armbands, though there is some variation." -- This is a sentence fragment.
The article structure is probably my biggest problem, in that there really isn't enough structure. Far too much of this reads as just stating fact after unrelated fact. "This is what this person said. And this is what another person said." and so on. For example, the third paragraph of the "Reception" section starts off by talking about how the concept inspired gender-swapped fan art of other Nintendo characters, and ends up talking about copyright law, which is a jarring transition that makes the article hard to follow. Or there's the "Background" section, which goes well outside the scope of just discussing background and ends up mentioning a fan convention. As someone who wasn't previously familiar with the subject of the article, I had to read it multiple times to be able to take everything in.
Finally, I have concerns over copyright for the included images, especially the second one. I am not especially familiar with copyright policy, so I say this with little confidence, but I am not sure that the fair use claims really stand up. The usage rationale for the second image states that the article as a whole is dedicated to the discussion of the work, which is clearly not true. Lowercaserho ( talk) 00:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)