Talk:Pixel Privateers/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 22:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 11:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking this for review. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:21, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Criteria 1

Some things to address:

the player can upgrade their spaceship and items and stats of squad members -- lists should not be written with "and" like this
I don't think the "Borg" mentioned in those reviews are the same characters from Star Trek, that would surely be a copyright issue...
Upon exploration, the player can level up, customize their ship and squad members with armor and other upgrades, boosting the team's defensive and offensive stats, and increase the size of the squad up to eight members. -- this sentence is a bit confusing, is it a four-part list or is the "boosting the team's" part specific to "other upgrades"?
Its style of gameplay has been compared to... I think this sentence should go in the reception section, as it is not an objective part of the gameplay.
Quadro Delta has described the game as a "tactical loot-'em-up". If this is necessary, I think it should go in the gameplay section. But it feels a bit redundant.
The reception section could do with a bit more work. I noticed that there are a couple of reviews listed on Metacritic that are not here, which could be added. I think there are more good details about what the reviewers thought that could be pulled in, at the moment it feels like just the bare minimum has been added. I would be wary of suggesting that many reviewers said one thing about the game when it is only just two or three. The summary sentence in the lead is also borderline WP:SYNTH, but I am happy to revisit that once the reception section has been worked on.
The official website should go in an "External links" section after the References, not in a "See also" section.

- adamstom97 (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 2

copyvio tool finds no likely copyright issues. I have spot checked the sources and found no issues. link-dispenser tool has identified a couple missing archives and links that may be down which should be addressed. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 3

This is a small (and new) article, but it does seem to capture most of the information that is available for this game. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria 6

Considering the size of the article, I think there is a good enough number of images here. File:Pixel Privateers gameplay.png's license should be marked as |image has rationale=yes, it needs alt text per MOS:ALT, and I think the caption could be improved. The current caption doesn't really explain what the image is to readers, for example that it is a screenshot from the game. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review status

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·