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

• Reviewer: Cteung (talk · contribs) 09:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written well a looks to be original work. The layout of the categories are clear and make sense. There are no obvious major improvements that can be made to the layout.

There are a large quantity of verifiable third party sources. All opinions were backed by inline citations and quoted well to emphasized that they are third party opinions. There are a few citations pointing to other wiki articles. Those should be pointed to other third party sources. Other than that point, the sources are great.

The basics of the character are explained well in the article. No sub topic is focused on too hard. Overall is stays quite broad in explain facts about the character. Some possible extra subjects to touch on is his game play style and in game history.

Overall the article remains neutral having all opinions pointing to third party sources and sometimes even quoted. The article has been quite stable for sometime now. There have not been any major changes in quite sometime.

For the most part this article meet the criteria outline in Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria. Cteung (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the faulty citations? --Niemti (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are few citations that point to other Wikipedia pages. It will be better if those points can go directly to the original sources.Cteung (talk) 08:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourcing to the games. What it might possibly lack is to include direct quotes, though.I'll get some. --Niemti (talk) 10:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That defiantly helps. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cteung (talk • contribs) 22:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reviewer: Waij (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really done this before, so I'll just go through the list:

1.Well-written: While I may not like the big paragraphs, I gotta say they are written fairly well. The sentences don't run on, and they summarize each point very well without going into too much detail!

2.Verifiable with no original research: lots of direct quotations from many different gaming sources. Solid all around research here.

3.Broad in its coverage: again, fantastic how every point is brought up but not given too much emphasis in comparison to everything else.

4.Neutral: The huge number of quotations and citations really make this a neutral piece, since the writer isn't sharing any opinions; he's only citing others who do, and from both perspectives!

5.Stable: Given that this is a gaming page, I'm a bit hesitant to say it will be stable in the future. However, if nobody has yet decried the information on this page in a huge way, there isn't a problem.

6.Illustrated, if possible, by images: A few images that make sense - the character in two incarnations. While it'd be nice to maybe have one more that showcases some gameplay or maybe his signature moves, it's enough to keep interest.

So all in all, it's a good article! While I'd like to see a little more formatting to make it easier to read, the content is solid. Waij (talk) 07:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's now an additional image, also I'm just one of the authors here. :) --Niemti (talk) 13:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. --Niemti (talk) 23:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you guys. --Niemti (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both reviewers haven't edited since the first so I'll just close this myself. Wizardman 16:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]