Jump to content

Talk:Meteos/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

  1. 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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    "A sequel for the game, Meteos: Disney Magic, was released for the Nintendo DS." - same again.
    Done. GamerPro64 14:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    Nevermind I was reading it wrong. Freikorp (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail: Fantastic work overall. Looking forward to promoting this once issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]