# Talk:Galactic Pinball

This review is transcluded from Talk:Galactic Pinball/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 16:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Gonna review this, hopefully I'm going to wrap it up quickly, as it is a very short article.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


### 1. Is it well-written?
As of yet, I have found only a few small issues that may need some work.


#### Lede
No need to thourougly explain how pinball works. It is linked earlier in the section and is mostly self-explanatory. Also, it is revisited again in the gameplay section I would finish the sentence at "tables available". Definetly too in-depth for the head section.
It should be pointed out that nausea etc. are general problems with the VB and not specifically caused by the game.


#### Gameplay and premise
In this section, "the players" is used throughout. Thus "where you control protagonist Samus Aran's ship" should be changed accordingly.


#### Reception
"Parish called it was a quality pinball game" should be changed to "called it a quality pinball game"
"An editor for IGN called it one of the best Virtual Boy games." Why?
IGN/PCMag and a few others are not in italics, while other publications are. Am I missing a guideline here or shouldn't they all be in italics?
From what I understand, and to be fair this understanding may be outdated or based on mistruth, Videogames is a magazine and thus should be italicized, while IGN, being a website, should not. Correct me if I'm wrong on that
sounds right to me, no worries ;) DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Also, I founc several outlets (f.e. Nintendo Life, Engadget (also written wrong)) that are not linked but should be.


### 2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
All sources seem to meet the standards. What I like especially is the fact that there are a lot of online sources. Most GAs on old/obscure games mostly rely on magazines or even Japanese magazines, which is of course fine, but a bit impractical when reviewing.
Copyvio, dup detector etc. all seem perfectly fine. 


### 3. Is it broad in its coverage?
Since it is a very niché game from a forgotten console, I think the article covers everything there is to cover.


### 4. Is it neutral?
Yes. 


### 5. Is it stable?
Yes.


### 6. Is it illustrated?
Yes.


### Conclusion
Overall, a good article that meets all the criteria and covers its topic thourougly. I will wait to check back with you concerning the issues I have pointed out, but once they're all resolved, the article will be an easy pass.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I got everything, italicized where appropriate and hyperlinked what needed to be hyperlinked. I also added an explanatory bit of IGN's reasoning for holding it in such high esteem.
Either way, thank you for the quick and efficient review! It's been quite a pleasant experience. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 10:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh well, it was a short article that didn't need much improvment, so no big deal! :) --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)