Talk:Video game rehabilitation/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 23:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Shall get to this soon. JAG UAR   23:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * Lead could do with being split into two paragraphs, in order to improve prose flow
 * "is a process of using common video game consoles" - why 'common'?
 * "The use of virtual feedback has been seen scattered throughout history for quite some time" - informal. This type of claim needs to have significant sources for a GA
 * "However, though the feedback was virtual, the performances were not widely virtual until the 1990s" - what does 'virtual' mean here? I don't understand
 * "With the early-stage experimentation, not many positive results were found causing some doubt of the systems" - comma needed between "found" and "causing"
 * "Some even found that too much virtual feedback increased poor performance outside of the controlled environment" - unencyclopaedic
 * "As virtual reality systems and virtual environments became more accessible and affordable, though, so too did the implementations of and research on them" - completely informal
 * "Now, common gaming consoles such as the Wii and Kinect allow researchers to use cheaper" - please
 * What is with the Roman numerals in the brackets of the history section?
 * "Saving energy while still participating in therapy has proven effective for these groups of people, since they are still able to progress in their goals towards rehabilitation, but not over-work themselves in the process." - unsourced
 * "They're tailored to the needs of the individuals and to the environment that they are expected to encounter on a regular basis" - informal contraction
 * Last paragraph of Rehabilitation through gaming vs. regular methods section largely unsourced
 * Wii is overlinked in the Physical rehabilitation section
 * "In this case, the common mobile app, Fruit Ninja" - popular

Close - not listed
I'm sorry but I'm going to stop here. The article doesn't meet the GA criteria. It contains a large amount of original research, informal writing and incorrectly formatted references. Please go over WP:GA? and renominate when ready. JAG UAR   23:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)