In this article, we will deeply explore the topic of Talk:Bowsette/GA1 and analyze it from different perspectives. From its impact on society to its relevance in the professional field, Talk:Bowsette/GA1 has captured the attention of experts and enthusiasts around the world. Throughout these pages, we will examine the origins of Talk:Bowsette/GA1, its evolution over time, and its influence on contemporary culture. Additionally, we will delve into the implications of Talk:Bowsette/GA1 in various areas, such as technology, health, politics, and more. This article will undoubtedly be an invaluable resource for those seeking to better understand the phenomenon of Talk:Bowsette/GA1 and its impact on the world today.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Rather than waiting on the above, I will be taking over. Let's write about some memes.
For replying to Reviewer comment, please use Done, Fixed, Added, Not done, Doing..., or Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. I will be crossing out my comments as they are redressed, and only mine. A detailed, section-by-section review will follow after this and my first comment (Referencing). –♠Vami_IV†♠22:27, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Referencing and prose
I cannot find any outstanding errors in the prose and referencing. However, Esquire does not have an enWiki article and is currently linking to the noble title. However, I think more needs to be written about whatever copyright implications this character has, lest it wind up being redirected to Bowser's article. I otherwise see no reason not to just quick-pass this article. –♠Vami_IV†♠22:57, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Vami IV: Unfortunately that's all there was for concerns over how the character itself falls under copyright, just enough to note there were some on Japan's end. As for the Equire wikilink, that's Done.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.