GA Review

[edit]

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

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 01:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: BigLordFlash (talk · contribs) 12:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BigLordFlash, just a reminder ping to complete this review when you have the time. -- asilvering (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, I will complete it today. BigLordFlashtalk 12:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will review this article. If you have any questions just talk to me on my talk page.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    I left some comments below. BigLordFlashtalk 13:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Nothing wrong here. BigLordFlashtalk 12:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    It has a list of all references. BigLordFlashtalk 12:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    I did a spot-check below. BigLordFlashtalk 13:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    No original research. BigLordFlashtalk 13:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No copyright violations (Earwig) BigLordFlashtalk 12:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    All the main aspects are addressed. BigLordFlashtalk 13:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    It stays focused on the topic. BigLordFlashtalk 13:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    It's totally neutral. BigLordFlashtalk 13:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    It is stable. BigLordFlashtalk 12:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    No copyright issues. BigLordFlashtalk 12:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Images have suitable captions. BigLordFlashtalk 12:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Lead

[edit]

Gameplay

[edit]

Monetization and music selection

[edit]

Seasons

[edit]

Development and release

[edit]

Reception

[edit]

Spot-check

[edit]

Based on this version

Thanks for reviewing this article, I've implemented all suggestions above. λ NegativeMP1 17:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very well written article, without any problems, and meets the criteria for Good Article. I will pass this one. Congratulations! BigLordFlashtalk 10:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.