Talk:Justice League: Chronicles/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Cat's Tuxedo (talk · contribs) 20:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: CooperCool23 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 16 May 2025 (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, as shown by a source spot-check.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (No original research): 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:

Review

Not a lot of points that I have to address for this article...

Prose Check

Lead

• video game --> beat 'em up game

Fixed Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The final sentence should include at least have a mention of the Mode 7 challenges from the Gameplay section.

Fixed Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

• Remove "using the select button" from the text.

Done Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

• Use quotes from the game as sources for the different storylines - I recommend skimming through a YouTube longplay to find these quotes.

Per WP:VG/PLOT, plot sections do not require sources as plot summaries are assumed to be sourced from the game itself, and there's nothing ambiguous enough in the plot to justify any secondary sourcing. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release

• The first paragraph feels like it is just listing off the games developers. Not necessarily a point that needs to be addressed now but something that is noteworthy regardless.

Reception

No points I need to address here.

Final Verdict

Article is pretty good, considering there was not much to go off of for a 2000's licensed game. You know the drill, so i'll leave you off with a word of wisdom...

The Duke Nukem (series) articles on Wikipedia suck. No seriously, checked most of them and they are in dire need of updates (not sure why I felt like sharing this fact on a GAR but eh, why not). COOPER COOL 23 user page 17:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]