Talk:Meteos/GA1
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Freikorp in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Do we really need to know the exact dates for release in the lead? Especially since they're all in the same year.
- Done. GamerPro64 14:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Later versions of the game were released for mobile phones and the Xbox Live Arcade" - when? The year will be sufficient.
- Done. GamerPro64 14:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- "A sequel for the game, Meteos: Disney Magic, was released for the Nintendo DS." - same again.
- Done. GamerPro64 14:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- "having been producer for Sega's Space Channel 5 and Rez. Masahiro Sakurai" - need something separating these two people, at least a comma after '5', but preferably a new sentence.
- I don't understand what you're asking. They're already two sentences. There's a period after Rez. GamerPro64 14:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- "It was later nominated for "Best Puzzle/Trivia/Parlor Game" at the Game Critics Awards" - I understand this award is related to E3, but this information still looks out of place since there's an entire sub-section dedicated to awards later on.
- Moved to 'Awards and accolades". GamerPro64 14:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse, Jack Sparrow and Winnie the Pooh are featured as contents in the vault that hold their stories are rearranged." - You've lost me. I'm feeling like there's a word or two missing from the end of the sentence, or maybe this just needs a better explanation for people who haven't played the game.
- Cleaned up the section. GamerPro64 14:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Do we really need to know the exact dates for release in the lead? Especially since they're all in the same year.
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: Fantastic work overall. Looking forward to promoting this once issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- Happy for this to pass now. Well done. Don't feel obligated, but I have a peer review I'm looking for comments at if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
