Talk:Angry Birds (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RJaguar3 | u | t 17:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I've heard a lot about this game, and the article was definitely interesting to read.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Some minor issues: "a single episode ... which contained three themed groups of levels, each with 21 levels." (redundant), "The game was nominated for the "Best Casual Game" award at the 6th annual International Mobile Gaming Awards, announced in Barcelona, Spain in February 2010." (this sentence is confusing; were the MGAs held in February 2010 or were the nominations announced then?), reviews for the PC and other versions "have been more mixed" (just plain "mixed" seems to be fine as the previous paragraph says that the reviews for the iPhone versions were not mixed at all but in fact very positive), "A common complaint of both versions was their respective price points being higher than that for the older smartphone versions" (awkward)

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Words to watch: "Jonathan Liu of Wired News noted that..." (implies that the replay value in trying to get as many stars as possible is obvious) "Will Greenwald of PC Magazine...noted" (same), "Graphically, Greenwald found the game 'has not changed one whit' in the conversion" (giving undue credibility to Greenwald's statement that the game, in fact, hasn't changed), "The PC version fared better, with Damien McFerrin at Electric Pig noting 'the mouse-driven control method showcases many distinct advantages over its finger-focused counterpart.'" (making more credible the statement that the mouse has advantages over the fingers as a control device), "and reached the top spot on the US App Store in the spring of 2010" (can you be more specific than "spring"? [I couldn't find anything in the WSJ source to clarify.] If the sources don't specifically mention spring, then it might be better to use a non-seasonal equivalent for the benefit of our Southern Hemisphere friends.), "This version initially includes 60 levels, a new bird "Blu and Jewel", and several 'trophies' with obvious additional level updates in May, July, October, and November of 2011." (editorializing with the word "obvious"; I checked the source and the claim appears to be supported by an in-app screen, it may be better to say that the in-app spaces for future updates imply [again, according to the source, so this isn't original research] that there will be future updates in May, July, October, and November) Lead: could be longer (for an article of about 40000 characters, the recommended length is three to four paragraphs) and incorporate a basic summary of the gameplay in a sentence or two. No problems I can see with Layout, Fiction, or List incorporation.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
references look fine

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
The quotations in the lead ("one of the most mainstream games out right now" and "one of the great runaway hits of 2010"), as well as the statistics mentioned, need a direct inline citation even though they appear in the lead.

C. No original research:
no obvious original research problems
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
very comprehensive

B. Focused:
very nice explanation of the basic gameplay structure without going into game-guide detail
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
looks neutral to me
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
There is a recent edit history, but since it seems to be improving the article and not devolving into an edit war, the criterion is satisfied.
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
All the images look good except for File:Angry-birds-peace-treaty.jpg. Is there critical commentary about this picture, or is it just decorative? What does the image add to the encyclopedic value of the Angry Birds article that couldn't be added by text?

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
The caption to File:Angry-birds-peace-treaty.jpg could be more descriptive. (In fact, a more descriptive caption might very well allow the image to satisfy WP:NFCC.)
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Placing on hold to address concerns, especially with grammar, words to watch, and lead. This article was reviewed March 23, 2011; it will be re-examined seven days from now, or March 30, 2011.

Grammar

As an addendum, I should point out that there are several extraneous commas between parts of a compound predicate, like in the sentence I quote below. Also, while this is not required for a GA, I would suggest rewriting several of the sentences that currently use passive voice into more concise sentences that use active verbs. For example, "Players may re-attempt levels as many times as they wish, and may also replay completed levels in an attempt to improve their score at the end of the game." could become "Players may retry or replay levels as often as they wish to attempt to improve their final score." RJaguar3 | u | t 18:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. With regards to the quotations in the lead, is citing them still necessary even if they appear later in the article, complete with citation? It certainly won't be a problem to add the citation, but I was paying attention (perhaps too much) to WP:LEAD and trying to keep citations out of it, if possible. --McDoob AU 93 05:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no special citation policies for the lead (per WP:LEADCITE, which says that "[t]he verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be cited"); however, often the statements made in the lead of the article will be common knowledge and therefore not require a citation. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Citations added. --McDoob AU 93 01:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of reviews the game has received, you should make use of {{Video game reviews}} for the reception section.Smallman12q (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Added the template per the suggestion. --McDoob AU 93 18:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should have a few sentences describing the style of the characters...for example the "stern" looking birds.Smallman12q (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... much of the first paragraph of the "Development" section discusses that it was the picture of the "angry-looking birds" that inspired the game in the first place. I'm going through the article you cited to see what else I can glean from it, including the two notable players it mentions. --McDoob AU 93 15:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Birds peace treaty image

I saw that the caption and rationale were changed. However, I'm still not convinced that the image meets WP:NFCC. To help in making a better non-free use rationale, could someone please explain what encyclopedic value the picture has that the text description of the sketch does not already provide? As I see it, the sentence in the article, "The Israeli comedy show Eretz Nehederet (in English: a Wonderful Country), one of the nation's most popular TV programs, satirized recent failed Israeli-Palestinian peace attempts by featuring the Angry Birds in peace negotiations with the pigs", tells me everything that the picture could tell me about the sketch. RJaguar3 | u | t 06:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked back at WP:NFCC and have looked at other discussions regarding exactly how NFCC should be interpreted. While I do agree that part of the first criterion is not met (you are right, the description in the text kinda sums things up rather well), at the same time this section does involve critical commentary of the image subject, specifically in included citations from other published sources, so I believe it has a purpose here (that is, to show how the characters have been appearing in other media, and a relatively notable but non-free image can illustrate that). That said, whether this image goes or stays is not the hill I want to die on, since the image is already in the article for the video clip, and this article links to that one. Your guidance in this review has been very helpful and most appreciated. --McDoob AU 93 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source for App Store sales

I was reading the article and I ran across the statement in the lead "...over 12 million copies of the game have been purchased from Apple's App Store." This statistic was unsourced, so I tried to find a source in the article. Later, in the Reception section, there is another sentence: "Since release, the free, limited version of Angry Birds has been downloaded over 11 million times for Apple's iOS, and the full-featured paid version has been downloaded nearly 7 million times as of September 2010." The source provided is [10], which only supports the second point made. Do you know of a source for the Apple sales? RJaguar3 | u | t 06:22, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Footnote #39 contains the statistic for the 12M iOS sales. I went ahead and added the appropriate citation for it. --McDoob AU 93 17:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

The article has improved sufficiently so that it now meets the GA criteria. To do this, I did remove the peace treaty image from the article per a contributor's suggestion, and I also made a minor change with a word to watch and a statistic citation that still lingered. If you want to include the peace treaty image, feel free to take it to WP:NFCR. Thanks to the contributors on your work in making this a good article, and congratulations. RJaguar3 | u | t 21:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]