Talk:Mario Party 5/GA1

GA Review

"which began with Mario Party in 1998." - dunno that stating this is vital to the reader's understanding of the game.
Why is http://www.armchairempire.com/Reviews/GameCube/mario-party-5.htm reliable?
Can the last paragraph of the lead by beefed up a bit? It stands out as rather short.
"The game's boards incorporate the theme of the Dream Depot, with each having "Dream" at the end of the title" - somewhat loopy writing with the "with each having" etc... the prose could do with a bit of smoothing out, basically. Eg. reword this to "The game's boards incorporate the theme of the Dream Depot, with each "Dream" at the end of the title" (and what's "title"? first usage of that word in the article)
"If only you didn't have to deal with all that BS in-between." - context. Person who hasn't played the game doesn't know how much BS there is, or what it is.
"were mainly the least enthusiastic about" - uggh, reword a bit?

Yeah, that's about it. Please leave me a note when done. I need to do more GA reviewing =\ Cheers. —Giggy 10:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I feel that I've addressed your points adequately. Personally, the suggestion of the fourth point didn't make sense to me, but feel free to reword if you're not satisfied with my edit. I don't know what else I can do about the sloppy prose, but feel free to alert me of any other examples if it needs work. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better. I still would like to see a bit more in the last lead paragraph; anything else that can be summarised from the recpetion section? Maybe a note about its E3 showing too? —Giggy 11:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and what makes http://spacepope4u.blogspot.com/2007/04/marios-lost-arcade-adventures.html reliable? (If you have justification you can say so - you don't have to automatically remove... just saying...) —Giggy 11:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm in a mood right now where the cost of using the energy to try and justify its reliability is outweighing the benefit of the source. But I suppose this one is actually quite important as it's the only English site I could find that actually talks about the arcade game. But saying that, I'm looking at it and it seems to be written by some randomer. I guess it would be best to find another source... Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, replaced with GameFAQs; not sure if it's reliable in this context, but it's the only other one I could find. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any URL for the replacement? If it's in the same boat (ie. user written) then maybe just add a Japanese source? (If you have a Japanese speaker.... the article can live without that statement for the time, maybe.) —Giggy 11:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was a ref error on my part. Fixed. Don't know if the above still applies. I've had a cursory look on Google, and still couldn't find anything decent. I could take a longer look, although that may take a while. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found a replacement from the proper site. Funnily, it came under a 404 but was okay when translated. Sorry for the delay—I temporarily lost connection to the Internet. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 12:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one's fine, good work. (Sorry, my internets died last night too.) Passing now. —Giggy 01:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 08:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]