Talk:Only Up!/GA2

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 03:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! This looks very interesting. I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for reviewing. I hope this article passes; I would hate to see another quick fail. Tarantula TM  (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it certainly could get to GA status! Let's resolve the sourcing issues and then I'll continue on with the prose and rest of the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Ganesha811 I have finished evaluating the sources. May we continue with the review? Thanks, Tarantula TM  (speak with me) (my legacy) 03:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC).
 * This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Reliability concerns

 * SpielTimes: This article is written by Icon Roy, who is a journalism graduate. It used to be a single-person website, but now there's staff behind it: This page states that in order for a person to join SpielTimes, they must "possess great knowledge about the field they will apply for." However, they don't examine a person's resume, but rather their past work or portfolio. There is an editor-in-chief, but... I could easily replace this with another source because it's a basic part of the game. -> Replaced citation with Rock Paper Shotgun.
 * AppTrigger: Removed. I figured that source can easily be replaced. -> Replaced citation with Kotaku.
 * Abolicious post: Added IGN citation, but kept primary source (it's important to have the full message).
 * Please explain duplicated.
 * For instance, current cite #22 (Lyons, Ben (July 13, 2023). "Only Up!". Gamereactor. Retrieved September 17, 2023) appears to be exactly the same as cite #25 (Lyons, Ben (July 13, 2023). "Only Up!". Gamereactor. Retrieved September 17, 2023.) You can combine these in visual editor by simply deleting the duplicate and copying/pasting the other identical citation in its place. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Should be fixed now. Tarantula TM  (speak with me) (my legacy) 23:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Elie Gould piece is also duplicated. I don't see any others with a quick scan but please doublecheck. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ That should be everything. Tarantula TM  (speak with me) (my legacy) 23:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * GameRant and TechRaptor: Removed.
 * Sources for reception: There are no reliable sources I could find. Metacritic doesn't show anything good. I guess the TechRadar review is the only one that's actually worth using in the reception section.
 * Not sure what you mean - Automaton Media, Techradar, Gamereactor, Dexerto, should all be fine. And if you can make a reasonable case for Try Hard Games and TechAU, they would work too. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Softonic: You're right. It's a web portal with sponsored articles. Removed. Also, see this discussion at the RSN.
 * TechAU: The article I'm using is written by a guy who has years of experience in journalism. I'm guessing it's worthy for inclusion. Also, the website states that they are independent from all subjects. However, there may be a slight chance this article is sponsored: this might be concerning. Kept review.
 * Try Hard Guides: They claim that they've been mentioned in other video game publications. Not sure how I'll verify that, but assuming that's true, I guess that makes it somewhat credible. The people on the editorial team have credentials: and . Kept review.
 * All looks fair enough! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)