Talk:Pac-Attack

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Lee Vilenski (talk · contribs) 08:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.

If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)

I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.

Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}

Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.

Immediate Failures

• It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria -
• It contains copyright infringements -
• It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). -
• It is not stable due to edit warring on the page. -

Links

Prose

Lede

• Could we combine the notes? I don't think we need two here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not really sure what you mean here? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Pac-Attack also known as Pac-Panic, or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Expand SNES - not the console name.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Is there a reason the release date isn't in the lede? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The year is listed in the first sentence. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Surely the actual release date of the game is lede-worthy, rather than a rough year? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Considering we are talking about a game " In the game" isn't necessary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

General

• Pac-Attack is a falling tile puzzle game, - I know you link this in the lede, but "falling tile puzzle" isn't exactly regular speech. Needs a second wikilink Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Pac-Attack is a falling tile puzzle game, often being compared to games such as Tetris and Columns.
• playfield is gargon, so needs a link to a glossary or equivilent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Alongside a standard single-player mode, - "standard" borders on WP:EDITORIALISING. I suggest removing the word altogether. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Some European and Japanese releases were titled Pac-Panic - feels kinda packed on at the end - Could this be added to the first sentence in this section? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Pac-Man: Special Color Edition - for what it's worth, it was also released as Pac-Man: Special Colour Edition in PAL. [1] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• An iOS “demake” - who says this, it's not in the citation offered. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• We don't usually put scores in the reception section when they also appear in the table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• as a 66%.[14][13] - not strictly speaking in the GAN partition, but, we should change the reforder around. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Any ideas who said these things in the reviews? Magazines don't talk (Also with associated authors for the refs)/ Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Lots of repetition of the word "game" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Overall, the reception is a bit poor, probably the biggest thing keeping it from being a GA. I'd take a look at WP:RECEPTION.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Notes & References

• Some publishers are linked, some aren't? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• One ref is clearly in Japanese, it'll need to be stated in cite web. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

• Automated note - If you fancy returning the favour, I have outstanding GA nominations that require reviewing at WP:GAN. I'd be very grateful if you were to complete one of these, however it's definately not manditory. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
  • Sorry about the delay on this one - had meant to finish it before the honeymoon. Now I'm back I'll take a look as soon as I can. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    • No worries. Take as much time as you need. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 21:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Haven't heard back on this in a while. Do you still plan to review this? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 03:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I've worked my way through it now. Looks like there is a few things - mostly the reception section - that need work. I'll place on hold. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Namcokid47, did you see the posted review? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:05, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I have very little interest in this game right now and very little motivation to fix it. I think an automatic fail would be a better idea. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 22:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.