Talk:Micro Machines (video game)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 15:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello! My name is Manfred von Karma, and I will be reviewing the article Micro Machines (video game). To clarify, the version of Micro Machines (video game) I am reviewing is Micro Machines (video game) as of 13:25, May 4th, 2016, by GamerPro64, which can be accessed here.

Also, a shout-out is deserved to every single positive contributor to this page. Special thanks here to Adam9007.

Immediate failures test

From what I can see here, the article does not immediately fail. It is feasibly nominated, does not contain copyrighted material, does not have outstanding editor's notes that need to be fulfilled and the article lacks constant vandalism.

Micro Machines (video game) Vs. Stature of writing (Cr1)

Here are a few minor gripes I have with this article's prose:

• "Breakfast" is not an environment (Line 1, Para 1, Gameplay)
• Capitalisation error in "...the AI consisted" (Line 4, Para 2, Development)

These are extremely minor and not worthy of failure. Cr1 passes but these changes need to be made nevertheless.

Micro Machines (video game) Vs. Verifiability of writing (Cr2)

All ideas presented here are fact and the reference test passed for no unreliable or made-up sources. This criteria is passed.

Micro Machines (video game) Vs. Coverage of writing (Cr3)

The article covers all the important mechanics of Micro Machines, without being overly complicated about things. All sections here are splendid. The game not being licensed was an important inclusion for the article.

Micro Machines (video game) Vs. Position of writing (Cr4)

The article presented here is has a completely neutral POV. Pass.

Micro Machines (video game) Vs. Stability of writing (Cr5)

There doesn't exactly seem to be much traffic here in the first place. There isn't any vandal history here. Pass.

Micro Machines (video game) Vs. Visual components of writing (Cr6)

The images represent the article perfectly; the box art supplied is the most commonly used and the gameplay screenshot is good. Pass.

Issue summary

Nothing major.

At a glance

Final verdict

This article is great -- it fulfills all the criteria possible, apart from the two minor errors mentioned above. Thus, without any further objection, I grant this article the status of GA.

If you wish to discuss this, request me to go into more detail, or just have a general inquiry, please put your concerns on my talk page. You'll probably get a response within a day or two. Manfred (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)