Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle/GA2

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

Reviewer: PerryPerryD (talk · contribs) 19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I am PerryPerryD, I am the new reviewer for this article. Judging by what I can see, I do not have any immediate issues on this article. I will be analyzing this article thoroughly to the best of my ability, I do request the help of other editors to identify issues I may miss. Good Luck.

This article does not use words that only video game savvy people can understand, therefor I believe that this article can be understood by a broad audience. All terms that may be perceived as confusing are hyperlinked to other articles.
 * Manual of Style:

1. Words to Watch. After carefully reviewing the article, I cannot find any words that need to be replaced. All words seem to show equal bias.

2.Fiction. Analyzing this article, All sections that involve Fiction (Such as Plot) do not tie in with real world events or make them seem like real world events. Therefor, This article is good on Fiction.

3.Lead section. The lead section contains 3 equally long paragraphs that describe the game, publisher, games reception, and unveiling without making it too long for the reader. Capitalization and formatting appears to be correct.

4.Layout. The layout appears to match the manual of style perfectly, With everything in the proper order as far as I can tell. 1 Side note however, I would recommend adding a "See also" section that links the reader to rabbids or rayman for example.

5.Lists. This article does not contain any lists. therefor this section is not necessary.

Looking through this article, Each claim is cited with an appropriate source and I cannot see any evidence that original research was done here. As for the sources in question, I will be looking through them carefully. But as of right now, The names attached to them appear to be verifiable and all have Wikipedia articles of their own. I will continue to analyze each source carefully. ((This might take a while, Please be patient)).
 * Citations and Sources:


 * 1 Citation removed due to it not mentioning the detail it was citing. (previously citation 6.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing the citations, Other than the one stated above, They all come from reliable sources and none of the work appears to be plagerized. If possible, however, I would advise citing contents of the "Plot" section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This article gives great detail on the plot, gameplay, reception, awards, and legacy, All of which are similarly weighted in terms of length, while at the same time, not going too off topic. (the most off topic thing i could find was the beyonce mention in Legacy, however that was 1 sentence and because it was in the Legacy section, does not apply to off topic).
 * Coverage:

In the head itself we can see a mention of the game having initial poor reception, but it also immediately mentions that it was revered later. This trend continued throughout the article until the reception section, Which is not applicable to neutrality as the reception quotes are sourced and cited. The author(s) of the article do not express any of their own opinions on the game itself in the specific article in question. (>:( Thanks panini)
 * Neutrality:
 * Eh, it was alright. Panini!  • 🥪 00:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the history tab, As of this current time, this article has not been the victim of any edit warring. The edits appear to be made in collaboration and good faith. I see no sign of instability.
 * Stability:

This article contains several contextual images. Some being from the game, The games cover art, or A person or people involved with the project. ALl images appear to be under fair use according to their Wikimedia tags with the exception of a photo of Shigeru Miyamoto which is tagged with CC By 4.0. The images are not out of place and align with the context of the specific sections of the article. All images are captioned with the captions being descriptive and professional.
 * Illustration:

After reviewing the citations, Along with the other things stated above. I see absolutely no reason to deny this article. 2 things of interest however. Im not one to jump the gun, so I'll wait for these to get fixed first. 1. Lack of citation in "Plot", This entire section does not have any citation on its contents or information. If possible, Please cite. 2. Inconsistency. Please determine if the name is "Beep-0" or "Beep-O". Thank you.
 * Conclusion:
 * Although I'm not stopping you (source reviews are always lovely), you can do something instead called a "spotcheck"; instead of looking at all of the sources, you can review a percentage of them picked at random, say, 10 to 25 percent. If the majority of them check out and are valid to sourcing the claim, it gives a good assumption that the sources are reliable. If not, the process is repeated until it does. Panini!  • 🥪 00:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Perfect timing, Thats exactly what I did PerryPerryD (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Panini for your quick response and fixes. With all of the issues I provided now fixed, I now see absolutely no reason to deny this article. Review Concluded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD (talk • contribs) 00:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)