Talk:Brain Age 2: More Training in Minutes a Day!/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

Review by Drilnoth (talk · contribs)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   I'm a little concerned about comprehensiveness... mainly, have there been any studies done regarding the game's effects? I'm not going to fail the GAN because of this, but it would probably be very helpful for an FAC if there are reliable sources that discuss the topic.

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   File:Sudoku-by-L2G-20050714.svg didn't have any tags about its status as being free or non-free. However, I have gone ahead and tagged it with {{PD-text}}.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Great work! -Drilnoth (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I will find information on studies done for the game. I think I can build a new section for that. Gary King (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And not to harp on the individual games, but it would also give a good reason to explain some of the puzzles, if they are discussed in the sources found. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)