Talk:Calculator (Nintendo Switch)/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this one soon. There shouldn't be a whole lot to go over, so I should get to it before too long. NegativeMP1 20:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

General comments

Since I don't think it'll be worth doing the usual 6 portio General comments:

• I believe there are no copyright violations.
• No cleanup banners.
• No edit warring, no past GAN's to take into account.
• Don't believe this article fails any of the quickfail criteria.

Review

Is the article reasonably well written?

• There are a few things I did notice here.
  • "Before it, the company had been known to release utility software and simple games for the platform." I believe that if they were already noted in the past to release utility based software for the Switch, with critical commentary of such via TouchArcade, there should possibly be some sort of example as for what they did before. The GamesRadar+ citation lists some examples that could be incorporated. Note that I'm not proposing a COATRACK.
  • According to TouchArcade's Shaun Musgrave, who had regularly reported on Sabec's releases, "over-priced, virtually useless software is Sabec's stock in trade". Perhaps reword this to "Described by TouchArcade's Shaun Musgrave, who had regularly reported on Sabec's releases, as (quote here)".
  • "He observed that all featured mathematical operations were functional" I'm not too sure if this is relevant given it's said throughout the article that it is a scientific calculator. If it is, I would probably just incorporate it into the previous sentence (layout felt unnatural for a calculator, though observed).
  • "SmallAnt set the record for counting to 1,000 using Calculator at 38 seconds." → "SmallAnt set the record for counting to 1,000 using Calculator in 38 seconds."
  • "it spawned a multiplayer parody in Battle Calculator" → "it spawned a multiplayer parody known as Battle Calculator"
    • Perhaps offer context as to how a calculator was converted into a competitive multiplayer game? The source specifies how the gameplay of Battle Calculator is.
  • Add alt text to the Calculator screenshot.

Is the article verifiable?

• References seem to verify the articles points.
• All sources are reliable.
• Nothing appears to be original research.
• No signs of copyright violations or plagiarism.

Is the article broad in its coverage?

• Article covers all major aspects on the subject. I do not believe there is any missing information, and I believe all reliable sources of substance on the subject are within the article.
• The article is focused in its coverage.

Does the article have a neutral point of view?

• Yes. Nothing seems biased or UNDUE.

Is the article stable?

• No edit warring appears to be going on, and most recent work on the article has been done by the nominator.

Is the article illustrated by images where possible and appropriate?

• All images have fair use rationale.
  • I do believe that the icon probably should be exported to Commons and is likely uncopyrightable due to it's simplicity, but there's already a discussion for that so I won't go there.
• Screenshot of the software itself has a caption, nothing needed here.

Final comments

There's not really a whole lot that needs to be done here, with the main issues I identified simply being a lack of context. I don't believe there are any major issues beyond what I've brought up already. I'll put this on hold to give you time to address the issues, which since there aren't many this probably won't take very long. NegativeMP1 23:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: Thanks for the review! I made a few amendments that should address your above concerns. Since some overnight edits turned the infobox into {{Infobox software}}, I also moved the screenshot there, as is common. If you feel like this is a downgrade, I'd be happy to undo it. IceWelder [✉] 08:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

That's actually perfect since it's more in line with other software articles now. I don't think I notice any other issues on the article, so I think this reaches the point of a Pass. Good job. NegativeMP1 16:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

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.