Talk:Alien Spidy

Alien Spidy has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: April 28, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Infobox and image

@Sven Manguard: I'm aware that you don't like utilizing copyrighted images (although I think it's unlikely that this game will pass GAN without any), but is there a reason there's no infobox? Tezero (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that they are particularly useful in situations where everything that would be in the infobox is also in the lead, but I have added one anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and now there's an image. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I'd kill PS3 and PC from the GameRankings section of {{vg reviews}}. It isn't an aggregate view if there are only one or two reviews calculated. czar ♔ 12:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it down to the notes section, putting it in additional context. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alien Spidy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Secret (talk · contribs) 19:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing... Secret ^account 19:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

No close paraphrasing concerns, prose is fine, sources are reliable and matches the information. Passing. Secret ^account 19:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]