Talk:Shipment (Call of Duty)

Shipment (Call of Duty) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 19, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Video games Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (0 participants)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (2 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (3 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (8 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shipment (Call of Duty)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 20:55, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 12:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this on in the coming days. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the location.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses one fair use image with proper rationale.

Lead

-Looks good

Design

-Looks good

History

-Looks good

Reception

-The Game Rant source and Eurogamer source do not seem necessary to the article, as their points seem pretty trivial.

Removed the point from Eurogamer, and tightened the writing from Game Rant since it still has some minor value.

Overall

-Reception's a bit weak but I'd say it's enough for the purposes of a Good Article. Looks pretty good. Let me know if you have any questions. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super in-depth reception for video game levels can sometimes be scarce even if notable, I put together what I could. Thanks for reviewing this article! λ NegativeMP1 19:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]