This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apps, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of apps on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AppsWikipedia:WikiProject AppsTemplate:WikiProject Appsapps articles
"Several elements from the series did not translate well to mobile, such as player choice, which had too many possibilities to suit the game's puzzle-solving." This sounds like a writer's opinion.
It's a direct report from an interview with the dev, so I added a direct citation in case a reader wants to challenge it
"This new puzzle design mode is planned for release several months after the game's launch." This seems outdated.
Updated
If Étienne Giroux is the game's designer, should he be mentioned in the infobox as well?
Source said "designer" and not "the designer"—I try to only add credits when it's something the sources cover in depth
Source 12's website, Touch Arcade, should be TouchArcade and hyperlinked.
I am not so sure about the reliability of source 5, zam.com. Can a better source be used?
Status: Done
All right. I have finished my review. I have read the article entirely and given all the issues that I have with the article before passing it. As such, I am placing this article on hold for changes to take effect within 7 days. On hold. Gamingforfun365(talk)19:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gamingforfun365, thanks for the review! I believe I've addressed everything, if you'll take a look. A few other replies: I italicize all publication names as titles of creative works (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized"). I also avoid adding reviewer names when they are of no consequence to the article—it's more work to make the reader remember who "Campbell" is, when they're primarily noting what publication they represent. By the same token, parentheses is sufficient when reviewer names are used. I also avoid the Metacritic score in the prose on purpose—it's been discussed several times in the bowels of WT:VG but suffice it to say that I don't think the score adds anything. I say 76 vs. 74 and the reader doesn't know the difference unless it's moored to something. Readers are better served by quoting the qualitative phrase Metacritic uses to describe the score, as it gives an immediate sense of what the reception actually was. (I'd note also that these points, while the attention to detail is appreciated, are outside the scope of the GA review, though, again, I'm happy to have them.) ZAM should be okay. It's not the best of sources, especially while it's new, but I believe it'll stand up to basic scrutiny. Thanks again, czar05:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'd argue that all of the publications in the reviews template should be italicized (I imagine I already have, just haven't looked at the archives) czar05:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]