Talk:Boku no Natsuyasumi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attribution[edit]

Mixup[edit]

This article describes release dates for the first game in the series, and gameplay/story elements from the third game released seven years later. Southsailor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5x expanded by Morgan695 (talk). Self-nominated at 21:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Boku no Natsuyasumi; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation

QPQ: No - Not done

Overall: @Morgan695: Good articles. Just need 3 QPQs. Onegreatjoke (talk) 03:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: Hi, QPQs have been completed. Morgan695 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approve all. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Boku no Natsuyasumi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 00:55, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

  1. [1] Might be worthwhile to discuss the forthcoming fan translation, as well as this source: [2] as a citation for a fan translation being in-demand for this game.
  2. Would it be possible to cite that the mobile port has yet to be released? Such as an RS with a "TBA" date?
  3. I wonder if it's best to have the creator's feelings on this game be a part of Reception.
  4. Be sure to archive the links when you get the chance

None of these would prevent passing, though for the former I think it'd be worthwhile to mention it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]