# Talk:Woody Woodpecker Racing (Game Boy Color video game)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Woody Woodpecker Racing (Game Boy Color video game)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Cat's Tuxedo (talk · contribs) 00:21, 1 May 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: CooperCool23 (talk · contribs) 14:35, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

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: 


### Notes
### Prose Check
#### Lead
• Replace "kart racing video game" as "kart racing game"
• Potentially replace "...were the result of a partnership..." with "...was the result of a partnership...". To me it makes more sense grammatically.


#### Gameplay
• Include a wikilink with "kart-racing video game" (should be shortened like the lead's mention of kart racing game)
• What's the item in the screenshot supposed to be for? The article should include something the text that explains it so that the reader at least has some background for it.


#### Development and release
• I have a feeling that this text could flow A lot better somehow. Each sentence feels like it just sort of stops and goes, if you know what I mean (could just be a me thing, otherwise it's alright).


#### Reception
• Good writing format, but could use more reviewers in the base text in order to provide more meaningful coverage on the topic.

Unfortunately, there's not a lot I can do about that considering how short the CVG and PG reviews are compared to IGN and GS. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)


#### Sources
• I don't know if this is a situation where there aren't enough references to additionally add, but I feel like the article makes way too much usage of references 1 to 3. These three references are used extensively in both the Gameplay and Reception sections.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. The reviews you see here are all I could find and only the ones you cited go in-depth with the game's workings. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)


#### Other Notes
• An image caption needs to generally say more than just "an example of gameplay". Try something like "Woody Woodpecker driving behind Chilly Willy. The heads up display at the bottom of the screen indicates race information (clockwise from bottom left): race position, laps, race time, race position, and items collected".


### Source Spot Check and Plagirism Check
Spot checked the sources; no issues arose.


### Final Verdict
So all in all, if these things are fixed, i'll be willing to give this article a GA pass. COOPER COOL 23 user page 01:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

All points have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the AllGame review from the article (kept the reference in for other material). My reason is two-fold: While a star rating sounds like something that would be useful, there is no critique to back it up that clarifies why this game got ranked how it did. My second reason is that 2.5 stars appears to be the default rating on the site when there is no actual critique. You can see it through several articles on their site, but here's just a handful I've found: Animorphs, Army Men: Sarge's Heroes 2, and Azure Dreams. In comparison, there is a review to pull from for other reviews with this ranking such as Armada F/X Racers. I have no proof to back this up, but I find it likely that is just placed in as "dummy text" to be submitted to their database. This is why I removed it and don't think its useful to cite as a review of the game. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)