Talk:One Million Checkboxes/GA1

GA review

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: The Green Star Collector (talk · contribs) 00:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 05:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

i <3 browser games. anyway, i haven't reviewed in a while, so expect me to make a few mistakes here and there. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:26, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Any progress on this? @TrademarkedTWOrantula Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, this is an old habit of mine I need to break! Apologies for the delay, I now have time to complete the rest of my video and will try to finish before the weekend (maybe even today). TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@The Green Star Collector: I have finished your review. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:58, 24 March 2025 (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.	Initially, I found the prose a little rough and clunky to read. I've went ahead and corrected some of the grammar myself. I did not spot any typos in the article.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is of adequate length. Layout is correct per MOS:LAYOUT. The article is not bombarded with words from the WTW list. Fiction and list incorporation policies do 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.	Article has a reference section. 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).	The article cites reliable sources such as USA Today, People magazine, The New York Times, Rock Paper Shotgun, and Gizmodo.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Spotchecking proves there is no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	At the start of my review, a considerable amount of text was copied; Earwig shows that the top result had a 21.9% similarity. While that isn't alarming, the text could be paraphrased. This issue has been fixed; the top result is now at a 10.7% similarity.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article contains adequate information on the subject's gameplay, activity, development, and reception - material that is suitable for an article about a video game.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article stays focused on the topic.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article is neutral. It does not try to praise or criticize 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.	While the checkbox art and developer image are freely licensed, the gameplay screenshot is not provided with a valid fair use rationale. A rationale has been added. Every image is now tagged with a copyright status.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The gameplay screenshot, checkbox art, and developer images are all relevant to the topic and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I could make a dad joke about checkboxes, but I'd- ah, nevermind. I lost it.

Lead

• One Million Checkboxes was a free... - Isn't the game still technically playable?
• the game saw thousands of participants - Change "saw" to something like "receive"? The verb doesn't work for me here.
• The phrase "check and uncheck" could be rephrased a few times. Perhaps something like "modify"?
• Tried summarizing the reception for you. Feel free to revert it if does not suit the article.

Gameplay

• The page displayed the overall number of checked boxes as well as a player's own count of boxes they had checked and unchecked. -> I was thinking maybe something like "The page displayed the overall number of checked boxes on the website as well as the number of boxes the player had checked."
• A couple of days after the game's release - How soon is "a couple of days"?
• certain amount of time - Does the source say how long it was?

Activity

• I get that the creator of the website himself uploaded these pictures, but I'm confused as to how they're free images because some of them contain copyrighted characters. (However, I do think these do make a great addition to the article's content.)
• different behaviors emerged -> "patterns in behavior emerged"?

Development and release

• Shouldn't this section come before "Activity"?
• "the large volume of usage" - Sounds awkward. Not sure what this can be rephrased to without using a technical term.

Reception

• Tried paraphrasing a few of the quotes. Revert as needed.

Spotchecking

• Will check 5 sources. (Revision)
• #1: Y
• #5: Y Y
• #8: Y
• #11: Y Y
• #13: Y N - Not sure how this matches with the original source: "But some can take comfort in the fact that it’s mostly humans trying to compete against each other in some kind of pursuit in the age of AI and chatbots."
• #15 (Bonus!): Y (AGF)

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.