# Talk:The Little Mermaid II: Pinball Frenzy

Hello again! I hope that you are having a wonderful weekend so far. I am thinking about putting the The Little Mermaid II: Pinball Frenzy through the FAC process sometime in the future. I was wondering if you could look through it to see if it would be ready for that (specifically to see if the sources are appropriate for FAC). Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hiya! (Did we discuss this article before? I vaguely recall but don't remember where.) Your hunch is right that the sources won't work for FAC—they don't work great for GA either. I'd ask yourself re: each source that isn't already noted at WP:VG/RS: What about this source shows reliability, either through explicit editorial process, editorial pedigree, reputation for accuracy or fact-checking, etc.? Spong.com appears to be the worst offender, off-hand. fr:GameKult is under discussion at WT:VG/RS and I've brought up Gamereactor before. LifeZette doesn't make a very compelling case for including its opinion as noteworthy. It's nice that Nintendo Blast uses cc-by-sa-3.0 licensing but their staff page doesn't necessarily inspire confidence (what is their editorial process?) I'd develop your own thoughts on (or defense for) these sources before approaching FAC.
On the nom in general, the article's on the pallid side but probably just because there isn't much to work with. I'd reread it as if you were a general audience. Do you need to know that it's the 28th animated feature? Can any sentence be made simpler? Remove superfluous words or syllables wherever feasible. Remove passive voice ("The game was described as") when it clarifies the sentence. There's lots of advice at WP:VG/GL on prose, especially Reception re: not attributing every sentence to its publication or author unless the sentence is an opinion that needs qualification. You can drop the |publisher= fields on your refs too (more in the VG guidelines). Feel free to {{ping}} me if you have any questions or I can help (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 16:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: Thank you for the message. The person on this message (here) describes GameKult as comparable to IGN and GameSpy. As for the other sources, I am not entirely certain. I can safely say that these are the only sources out there that talk about the game in any "meaningful" capacity. I will probably just avoid putting this up for FAC. It is a shame though as I thought it would be cool to get something as random and obscure as this up to that level. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
Consider too that many popular sources from over a decade ago are not available on the open web. You might be able to pick up coverage from newspapers and magazines by searching academic databases. czar 16:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
@Czar: Good point. I will definitely look through those sources. I will first start with removing the questionable sources before adding any further information from new sources. I apologize for being frustrated with my previous message; I still have a lot to learn about source/reliability policy and I will try to keep being better with it. Hope you are having a great weekend btw! Aoba47 (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I have removed some sources. I will most likely open a peer review for this in the future before considering an FAC. I believe that I have exhausted all available sources on this topic. Aoba47 (talk) 01:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)