Talk:Solar 2

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Solar 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sven Manguard (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

GAN Quicksheet 1.24 SM
(Criteria)

Starting comments: I hadn't intended on doing any more GAN reviews, because I don't find them as enjoyable as other maintenance tasks, but Hahc21 requested that I review this. So I will. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written: Section acceptable

a. prose/copyright: Acceptable

b. MoS compliance: Acceptable

2. Accurate and verifiable: Section acceptable

a. provides references: Acceptable

b. proper citation use: Meh

• You're leaning very heavily on the game's tutorial as a source. I can't say that I'm a fan of that, as it's a first-party source. Since all of the citations are in the Gameplay section, I'll let it fly, but if you see opportunities to phase out the tutorial in favor of reliable, third party sources, I encourage you to take them.

c. no original research: Acceptable

3. Broad in coverage: Section acceptable

a. covers main aspects: Acceptable

b. focused/on topic: Acceptable

4. Neutral: Section acceptable

• "Solar 2 received a positive response from video game journalists upon release. At Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, the game received an average score of 72 based on 8 reviews." - This is tricky. Going by the numbers, 72 is "Mixed or average reviews". Going by the reviews, however, it's 6 positive reviews, 1 mixed, and 1 negative review. I will leave it like this, because it's not inaccurate, although I did change the wording of the lead to be more accurate.
• I would have inserted the negative review (PCGUS) to the summary table in the review section, for balance reasons, but it's offline. Not a big deal, it appears to be an outlier.

5. Stable: Section acceptable

6. Image use: Section acceptable

a. license/tagging correct: Meh

• "n.a." is not acceptable in FURs. I have fixed it for you in this case, but please keep this in mind for the future.

b. relevant/properly captioned: Acceptable

7. Additional items not required for a GA, but requested by the reviewer: Section acceptable

a. images that should have alt texts have them: Acceptable

• The only image that could hold one has a description that serves the same purpose as the alt text would.

b. general catch all and aesthetics: Acceptable

Comments after the initial review: Right. I made a bunch of little changes as I went. I could have asked you to do them in order to pad the size of this review for the WikiCup, but if the judges say it's too short, whatever. It's comprehensive, at least. This passes. A bit too heavy on primary sources for my take, but it's acceptable, and that's my only issue anyways. Good to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sources

There are no sources in the headline section of this article. That is probably not a good thing for the most relevant and quote portions. 209.49.200.42 (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• [1]

→ Call me Hahc21 05:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)