Talk:Viva Piñata: Trouble in Paradise/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 15:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do the final piece. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer, cool, thanks! I know you have a few open—if there's any way you can put this review before your others, I'm making one last scramble to have the "good topic" status finished before the compilation's first anniversary on August 4. Appreciate your review either way czar 19:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

maintains a garden and the piñata creatures that come to live there. - You can't "maintain" a pinata creature. Needs a better word.

Why not? I think maintains is more descriptive than keeping/caring for a garden and its creatures

The game released in September 2008 to generally favorable reviews. - should be "was released"

Eh, are you sure? I changed the order of the clauses but it's not like we need to clarify who was doing the releasing, and the game did release, so it's functioning as a verb.

e.g., a certain amount of soil can be merged with attracted to a garden with a specific plant or another type of piñata - Both of them are talking about the prerequisites and the conditions needed to attract them
The piñatas grow in complexity, - This makes me thought that the pinatas are growing. May be you can rephrase it to "As players progress through the game, the pinatas they encounter have more requirements"
32 new types of piñata creatures - The first game only has 7 "types", the sequel now has has 39 types?

Where does the first game only have seven types? I didn't include a total number because I don't recall seeing one (in my GA-level sources at least)

Not sure why I write 7 types. Anyway, the article mentions Creature types include ladybugs, crabs, geckos, gorillas, and vultures. - so there are generally five types of pinata, and then the sequel introduces 32 new types. It is rather unclear.

There are dozens of different types, but the articles don't discuss that, or I would have mentioned it. I think it should be clear that "includes" functions like "for example", no? I added "among others" just in case.

I was thinking that there are only five types. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

the player to find new piñatas to make happy and send to parties around the world - What is "make happy"?
racing minigame - the racing minigames is side-scrolling. This should be mentioned.[1]
The caption of the gameplay screenshot is not very clear. There is only one shovel in the screenshot.
Cook said that he would work on the game's shop interface had he more time. - The gameplay section does not mention about anything about the game's "shop"
but another requirement in the animal acquisition process. - What was his opinions on this "requirement" then.
Mc Shea (GameSpot) was grateful that the story remained in the background of the game - Did he mention why?

Not exactly, though one could read into it: "It's a thin excuse to get you back on the romance wagon, but it thankfully stays in the background after an early cutscene."

The reception section is a bit short. In Metacritic, I saw a 100/100 review from 1UP and a Destructoid review, which is the lowest among most publications. These two could be added for more variety. A limited selection of reviews do not tend to reflect the game's overall reception.

And some articles have three (or fewer) reviews—the issue would be what exactly is lost for breadth by not including more. I reached saturation with the ones I used. (They were essentially repeating themselves and it's not like there was a loss of both praise and criticism for the title.) I also used sources most reflective of reviewers (there is some guidance for this at {{vg reviews}})—I don't consider 1UP.com or Destructoid to count for much, especially when other high caliber sources were available.

I think that the reception section, as it stands now, is acceptable since it is long enough, though you should expand it if you are going to push the article for further status.

wrote that players would continue playing the gamejust to unlock nuanced - spacing issue. Should be "game just"

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list corporation:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Overall it is a great article. It is well-written and reliably sourced. The reception section needs some slight expansion and the caption needs to be slightly reworked, but most are just minor issues. AdrianGamer (talk) 05:28, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @AdrianGamer—helpful comments! I think I've addressed all of the above in one way or another. Let me know what you think about the Reception. I'd definitely expand it a tick for FAC but I think it covers everything by way of breadth as of now czar 09:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since all the issues are fixed, the article is good to go! Viva Piñata: Trouble in Paradise is now a

. Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]