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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Captain Galaxy (talk · contribs) 01:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 18:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Funny enough, I was just thinking of bringing this article to GA, as I myself am a mobile game enthusiast. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 18:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | After a thorough copyedit conducted by myself, the grammar should be in tip-top shape. No typos spotted. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead section summarizes article adequately. Article is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. Article is not bombarded with words on the WTW list. Fiction is out-of-universe. List incorporation policy does not apply. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Reference section exists; no bare URLs spotted. | |
2b. 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). | Several sources considered reliable by WP:VG/S are used in the article, including Destructoid (staff-written), Pocket Gamer, AppAdvice, Game Rant (non-controversial subject), TechRadar, Gamezebo, and TouchArcade. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | Spotchecking proves there is no original research. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | According to Earwig, the top result is at a 7.4% similarity, making this article unlikely to have any copyright violations. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The article has information on the game's gameplay, development, release, and reception - material that is adequate for a video game. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Article does not go off topic; it does not give undue weight to a certain viewpoint. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Article is neutral; it features both praises and criticisms of the game and does not try to promote the game itself. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Article is stable. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Both the app icon and the gameplay snapshot are tagged with their copyright status. Both have valid non-free use rationales. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | The app icon serves as the identifying cover art of the game, and the gameplay screenshot showcases how the game is played and what it looks like. Both have suitable captions. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Alright, off to bed. |