Talk:Pokémon Duel/GA1

GA review

Passed. TzarN64 (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

Reviewer: TzarN64 (talk · contribs) 23:24, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is going to be my first time reviewing an article, so i'm going to give it my all. Thanks! TzarN64 (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2025 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Looks really well written to me. TzarN64 (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

File:Pokemon Duel Screenshot.png is missing a detailed non-free use rationale (WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#2 are just replaced with "n.a."). Overall, this article looks good. Just fix the current problems and i'll be able to pass it. TzarN64 (talk) 03:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TzarN64 would you be willing to include your spotcheck rationale summary? Reviews typically aren't passed without a verifiable spotcheck, and though I have good faith that you completed it, for the future I would suggest making sure you include it in your GA reviews so you do not cause any confusion about the spotcheck's completion status.

Good catch on the NFCC rationales! I've updated the screenshot's usage rationale; let me know if it needs any more updates. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’ve already reviewed the sources yesterday and has already did a spot check. As all of my concerns has been addressed, I’ll go ahead and pass this article. TzarN64 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.