Talk:Justice League: Injustice for All/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 07:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll take this. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

✅
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * "and employed the Joker, Faust, and Star Sapphire" I believe the appropriate verb is deployed
 * and the campaign length was deemed to be short remove to be verb; all inline citations supporting this claim should be moved exclusively to this text instead of consolidating them with another cite supporting a different claim (WP:INTEGRITY)
 * Gibson deemed the characters' lack of visual personality to be the game's most "catastrophic" element. revise to "Gibson deemed "catastrophic" the characters' lack of visual personality"
 * The Reception section is riddled with verbs such as felt, found, figured, assessed, proposed, and derided which could be substituted with more neutral ones, such as said, wrote, and criticized.
 * Wikilinks needed for collision detection and pan and scan
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Everything is well referenced and reasonably paraphrased
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Major pieces of information are missing from the Development section. The section feels more "narrow" in its coverage than "broad"; while it does offer persons involved in the game's development, there is no further information beyond that. Some readers would be curious to know what the processes the creators went through on each stage of development, considering a few video game reviewers opined that the game felt rushed by the devs.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall: I'm leaning towards failing this GAR due primarily to issues raised at criterion 3a. However, I prefer not to fail a review right off the bat, so I'll give you a chance to explain why should I be lenient towards this criterion while I put this review on hold. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The development and release information in this article is all that is publicly available, and as such the coverage is as broad as it can possibly be in this regard. As one can probably guess, journalists in those days weren't exactly clamoring to cover the gestation of a licensed game for an over-the-hill console or easy-to-program-for handheld system when such a title, far more often than not, turned out to be more shovelware (as the Game Boy Advance's full library can attest). In the face of journalistic apathy, such circumstances as those of Digimon Rumble Arena or The Invincible Iron Man can't really be helped. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. It appears you've reasonable covered everything you could about the article, and that should be enough. I'm pleased to announce that the article has passed the review. Well done. Perhaps you'd be interested in nominating this article for DYK? An interesting hook would be the fact that this game turns 20 on November 18; it'd be awesome to feature that hook in the main page on that same day (if it ever makes it on time, that is). Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall: I'm leaning towards failing this GAR due primarily to issues raised at criterion 3a. However, I prefer not to fail a review right off the bat, so I'll give you a chance to explain why should I be lenient towards this criterion while I put this review on hold. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The development and release information in this article is all that is publicly available, and as such the coverage is as broad as it can possibly be in this regard. As one can probably guess, journalists in those days weren't exactly clamoring to cover the gestation of a licensed game for an over-the-hill console or easy-to-program-for handheld system when such a title, far more often than not, turned out to be more shovelware (as the Game Boy Advance's full library can attest). In the face of journalistic apathy, such circumstances as those of Digimon Rumble Arena or The Invincible Iron Man can't really be helped. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo (talk) 18:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, fair enough. It appears you've reasonable covered everything you could about the article, and that should be enough. I'm pleased to announce that the article has passed the review. Well done. Perhaps you'd be interested in nominating this article for DYK? An interesting hook would be the fact that this game turns 20 on November 18; it'd be awesome to feature that hook in the main page on that same day (if it ever makes it on time, that is). Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Pass/Fail: