Talk:Aqua Aqua

GA Review

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

Reviewer: PerryPerryD (talk · contribs) 17:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I am PerryPerryD. I will be reviewing this article for GAN. If any other editors have any comments or suggestions I highly encourage you to apply them here.

"and that the game would basically be its predecessor with improved visuals."

Please change the word basically here as it can be seen as unprofessional. --Reviewer Fixed. In some points, the word "was" is used instead of the word "were" (i.e the graphics was criticized). --Reviewer Fixed

More comments were initially written here, however after a second review of this article, these issues were either already resolved, were not issues in the first place, or are fixes that take no time at all to adjust. Due to this. I no longer see any reason for this article to not be marked as a GA. I apologize for the confusion earlier.

Editors Note. HumanXAnthro has provided excellent points and counter-arguments against my review. Due to these, I have decided to mark this article as 2nd Opinion. The comments below describe the points that do not need to be fixed. Thank you. This article shows information about the game in question, has properly sourced its citations, Makes the information not too complicated, and yet not too simple, And as far as i can tell. Follows the 6 GAN Criteria. Congratulations. If another editor wants to counter this decision, Please do so.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC) 

Thanks for the review! I have been told on the talk page that this your first attempt at a review, and I respect the effort. However, you admitted then you went off "visual judgement", which led you to make a lot of mistakes in your points. In particulary, I need to address the WP:DUEWEIGHT comments. An article being "small" means nothing. It does not mean it's incomplete or not reflective of major parts of the available literature. There are lots of short GA and even FA out there. I'm also not seeing why the gameplay section being relatively smaller than the development section is a problem. The reason the gameplay section is shorter than the development is because there is less to cover about the gameplay, so WP:WEIGHT is perfectly represented. Also, to respond to, "As far as i can tell, this goal is not clearly described", it's literally the first sentence of the gameplay section: "Described by Electronic Gaming Monthly's Chris Johnston as a combination of Tetris and Civilization, it is a 3D isometric puzzle game where the player builds paddocks on land to prevent falling water bubbles from dripping off the landscape." Additionally, only twice are sales figures for Aqua Aqua brought up (once in the lead and then again in the body), and the only time sales are brought up is when discussing the reception of the previous game, not Aqua Aqua 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 19:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

When i said visual judgement, I did not mean that literally, I analyzed each paragraph. Your statements do provide clear points however. This was a judgement error on my part, And i deeply apologize for this mistake. I am setting the nomination to Second Opinion. good luck. PerryPerryD (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

After further re-evaluation, Assistance from @David notMD and @HumanxAnthro. I no longer see any visible reason for this article to not be a GA. I have updated my decision. PerryPerryD (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)