Talk:Minesweeper (video game)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 04:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Only a short article so I hope to complete it soon. BoJó | talk UTC 04:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it once and made a few tweaks. I think the coverage is fine and there are no POV or WP:OR issues. I'll read it again and check the sources. Should be able to do that later today. BoJó | talk UTC 04:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (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:

The August review was quite searching and raised several good points. I'm satisfied on the whole that you have answered them and, for what it's worth, I agree with the no change outcome of the RM discussion as it's clear to me that this article is generic, whereas Microsoft Minesweeper is a specific topic. I have played the game in the past (though it's years since I last saw it anywhere) and I understand the purpose and method of playing. I freely admit I have no technical knowledge of the game and I will have to take the sources on trust but, from my point of view, I see no issues with any of them. If any should be shown to be non-RS, however, I will accept that. On that basis, I've checked GACR#2b as a pass this time.

As mentioned above, I thought the prose needed a few tweaks but I've made the changes myself instead of listing them here. I think the prose is okay now but, as with any article, there's always room for further improvement. In a similar vein to 2b, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt on GACR#1a and that is a pass too.

It seems to me that coverage was the main issue in August but, as I have always considered this game to be a very simple one, I am surprised by the extent of coverage provided. It depends on your point of view, of course, because I'm only a player. I think the coverage is apt and well within scope. I daresay additional material could be found but whether it should be included or not is another matter. The lead explains the concept very well and I think the Gameplay section is well written and illustrated. You've also added a useful, readable and well-researched section on the history (I like the unknown origin mystery) and I think you've done very well to add the variant and complexity sections. That all said, I'm happy with the coverage and I've passed both GACR#3a and 3b this time.

As in August, there are no problems with stability, NPOV or original research so those are all checked. I think the illustrations are very good. The variant images are useful examples with no further explanation required (i.e., 3D, hexagonal, etc. are sufficient as captions). The KMines image is a good one as it shows what the objective is – a clear field with all the mines flagged. I suppose some readers might ask for captions under each image of the 9x9 series but I think that would be unnecessary and would spoil the coverage. The series is a useful illustration of the gameplay from start to finish and it is well explained in the narrative above. One thing I could suggest is to shift the series to the top of the Objective and strategy piece, as some readers might find it easier to look at the pictures first and then read the text, but I'm happy with either option.

Overall, then, I think this is a good article and deserves to be promoted. I'll do the necessaries at GA and the talk page. Well done. BoJó | talk UTC 06:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]