Talk:Galactic Pinball

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 16:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Gonna review this, hopefully I'm going to wrap it up quickly, as it is a very short article.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

1. Is it well-written?

As of yet, I have found only a few small issues that may need some work.

Lede

• No need to thourougly explain how pinball works. It is linked earlier in the section and is mostly self-explanatory. Also, it is revisited again in the gameplay section I would finish the sentence at "tables available". Definetly too in-depth for the head section.
• It should be pointed out that nausea etc. are general problems with the VB and not specifically caused by the game.

Gameplay and premise

• In this section, "the players" is used throughout. Thus "where you control protagonist Samus Aran's ship" should be changed accordingly.

Reception

• "Parish called it was a quality pinball game" should be changed to "called it a quality pinball game"
• "An editor for IGN called it one of the best Virtual Boy games." Why?
• IGN/PCMag and a few others are not in italics, while other publications are. Am I missing a guideline here or shouldn't they all be in italics?
  • From what I understand, and to be fair this understanding may be outdated or based on mistruth, Videogames is a magazine and thus should be italicized, while IGN, being a website, should not. Correct me if I'm wrong on that
    • sounds right to me, no worries ;) DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• Also, I founc several outlets (f.e. Nintendo Life, Engadget (also written wrong)) that are not linked but should be.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

All sources seem to meet the standards. What I like especially is the fact that there are a lot of online sources. Most GAs on old/obscure games mostly rely on magazines or even Japanese magazines, which is of course fine, but a bit impractical when reviewing.

Copyvio, dup detector etc. all seem perfectly fine.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

Since it is a very niché game from a forgotten console, I think the article covers everything there is to cover.

4. Is it neutral?

Yes.

5. Is it stable?

Yes.

6. Is it illustrated?

Yes.

Conclusion

Overall, a good article that meets all the criteria and covers its topic thourougly. I will wait to check back with you concerning the issues I have pointed out, but once they're all resolved, the article will be an easy pass.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I got everything, italicized where appropriate and hyperlinked what needed to be hyperlinked. I also added an explanatory bit of IGN's reasoning for holding it in such high esteem.

Either way, thank you for the quick and efficient review! It's been quite a pleasant experience. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 10:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, it was a short article that didn't need much improvment, so no big deal! :) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)