Aqua Aqua has been listed as one of the
Video games good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 2, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PerryPerryD ( talk · contribs) 17:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I am PerryPerryD. I will be reviewing this article for GAN. If any other editors have any comments or suggestions I highly encourage you to apply them here.
"and that the game would basically be its predecessor with improved visuals."
Please change the word basically here as it can be seen as unprofessional. --Reviewer Fixed. In some points, the word "was" is used instead of the word "were" (i.e the graphics was criticized). --Reviewer Fixed
More comments were initially written here, however after a second review of this article, these issues were either already resolved, were not issues in the first place, or are fixes that take no time at all to adjust. Due to this. I no longer see any reason for this article to not be marked as a GA. I apologize for the confusion earlier.
Editors Note. HumanXAnthro has provided excellent points and counter-arguments against my review. Due to these, I have decided to mark this article as 2nd Opinion. The comments below describe the points that do not need to be fixed. Thank you. This article shows information about the game in question, has properly sourced its citations, Makes the information not too complicated, and yet not too simple, And as far as i can tell. Follows the 6 GAN Criteria. Congratulations. If another editor wants to counter this decision, Please do so.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Aqua Aqua has been listed as one of the
Video games good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 2, 2022. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PerryPerryD ( talk · contribs) 17:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello. I am PerryPerryD. I will be reviewing this article for GAN. If any other editors have any comments or suggestions I highly encourage you to apply them here.
"and that the game would basically be its predecessor with improved visuals."
Please change the word basically here as it can be seen as unprofessional. --Reviewer Fixed. In some points, the word "was" is used instead of the word "were" (i.e the graphics was criticized). --Reviewer Fixed
More comments were initially written here, however after a second review of this article, these issues were either already resolved, were not issues in the first place, or are fixes that take no time at all to adjust. Due to this. I no longer see any reason for this article to not be marked as a GA. I apologize for the confusion earlier.
Editors Note. HumanXAnthro has provided excellent points and counter-arguments against my review. Due to these, I have decided to mark this article as 2nd Opinion. The comments below describe the points that do not need to be fixed. Thank you. This article shows information about the game in question, has properly sourced its citations, Makes the information not too complicated, and yet not too simple, And as far as i can tell. Follows the 6 GAN Criteria. Congratulations. If another editor wants to counter this decision, Please do so.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PerryPerryD ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)