Talk:The Incredible Hulk (Nintendo DS video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 03:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Hello, I will be doing the review for The Incredible Hulk (Nintendo DS video game) Lazman321 (talk) 03:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

1 - Well written

1a - Clear and concise prose

• ...they criticized the repetitive gameplay and level design, and had lukewarm reactions... to ...they criticized the repetitive gameplay and level design and had lukewarm reactions...
• ...to emulate the Nintendo DS's control scheme as use of the touchpad was limited. to ...to emulate the Nintendo DS's control scheme, for the use of the touchpad was limited.
• ...present a working prototype of a project on platform during the pre-production stage, to ...present a working prototype of a project on the platform during the pre-production stage,
• ...felt that the enemies were intelligently placed, and that the long stretches without opportunities... to ...felt that the enemies were intelligently placed and that the long stretches without opportunities...

That's it really. The article in general is pretty well written. It's just these minor grammar issues that need to be dealt with. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

All issues have been taken care of. This criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

1b - Adherence to the Manual of Style

There doesn't seem to be any Manual of Style issues in relation to the criteria. The lead section summarizes the key points well, the layout is standard, there is no words to be cautious about, all fiction is localized in the gameplay section, and there are no lists. As such, this criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

2 - Verifiable with no original research

2a - Identifiable list of references

The list of references is satisfactory. This criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

2b - Reliable sources

• You use a GameSpot release date overview to source the release dates in Australia and Europe. Unfortunately, release date overviews in GameSpot cannot be used as per WP:VG/S. This is because GameSpot shares its release dates with GameFAQs which is an unreliable website. Try finding a better source for those release dates. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

That's it really. Everything other source is reliable, and the only primary source is the game credits. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for finding a better source. Shame couldn't find a source for the European release date. Nonetheless, this criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

2c - No original research

• The Incredible Hulk is a side-scrolling platformer in which the player controls the Hulk as he traverses through 30 levels spanning Alaska, Brazil, and the United States. - The game being a platformer and taking place in Brazil at one point is not backed up by the source.
• Hidden within the levels are twenty cosmetic skins... - The statistic is not in the source.
• The cutscenes are derived from the console version of the game.[5] - This is not mentioned in the source.
• Reviewers initially derived simple pleasure in wielding the Hulk's strength before being overcome with a sense of monotony after the first few levels.[3][5][15] - None of the sources listed actually depict this.

Please look into these concerns. I hold original research and verification under more scrutiny than a number of other policies.

All concerns have been taken care of. This criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

2d - No copyright violations

With a copyvio score of 22.5%, this criterion does ✓ Pass.

3 - Broad in its coverage

3a - Main aspects

All the main aspects of the game are covered, especially since the plot isn't really considered important to the game and as a result, doesn't need its own section. This criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

3b - Focused

This article never strays off-topic. It is all entirely focused on the game. This criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

4 - Neutral

The gameplay and development sections are written objectively, while the reception section balances all viewpoints. This criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

5 - Stable

There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes. This criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

6 - Illustrated by media

6a - Copyright tags

Both images have valid fair-use rationales. This criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

6b - Relevant media

Both images are relevant to the game, with one being the cover art and the other being a screenshot. This criterion does ✓ Pass. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

7 - Verdict

There are minor grammatical errors and a few source concerns in this article. I will be placing this review  On hold for seven days in order for improvements to be made. Lazman321 (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, that should be taken care of. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Good job. All concerns have been taken care of. This article has now  Passed the review and will now be considered a Good Article. Lazman321 (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)