Talk:Lucky Luna
 | Lucky Luna is currently a Video games good article nominee. Nominated by PresN at 02:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer. Short description: 2022 video game |
_%22BIG_GOMEZ%22.svg)
About TouchArcade review...[edit]
@PresN: You interpreted it as 5 stars, but in actuality it appears to not have any listed stars, as none of them are filled in. Calling it up on Wayback Machine shows it initially had no star rating so the addition of it might be a glitch. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: Ugh, that makes sense. I'm not sure then that we should have a box at all- one with just a single review seems wrong. --PresN 13:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @PresN: In that case, the one review score should be stated in the body text. The rule about not mentioning the scores is contingent on an infobox existing with the scores. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: It's not, though? WP:VG/REC is the MOS part for the reception section, and it says
"Reduce minutiae inappropriate for a general audience. For example, avoid scores and statistics in prose, which are hard for the reader to parse and often impart little qualitative information."
It doesn't say that you should ignore that if you don't have a review box. Scores should only be in the box, and the review box itself is optional. If you disagree, we should probably ask at WT:VG to get the wording more clear. --PresN 18:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)- It states that "Video game reviews exists for this purpose" and then in the next entry says "this template is not required" so I think it absolutely contradicts itself. If it's trying to position the review template as the means for displaying actual scores, it should probably not call it optional, or clarify that scores don't have to be given at all (but I personally think they should always be shown). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#MOS vagueness: review scores without boxes; I do agree that it could be clearer what to do if there's no reviews box. For the record, my position is that the lack of a box does not mandate that scores be in the prose, because scores do not belong in the prose at all. --PresN 19:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- It states that "Video game reviews exists for this purpose" and then in the next entry says "this template is not required" so I think it absolutely contradicts itself. If it's trying to position the review template as the means for displaying actual scores, it should probably not call it optional, or clarify that scores don't have to be given at all (but I personally think they should always be shown). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Zxcvbnm: It's not, though? WP:VG/REC is the MOS part for the reception section, and it says
- @PresN: In that case, the one review score should be stated in the body text. The rule about not mentioning the scores is contingent on an infobox existing with the scores. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Lucky Luna/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: PresN (talk · contribs) 02:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: The Night Watch (talk · contribs) 14:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll look at this one. The first comments should be up by Saturday at the latest. The Night Watch (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Apologies for the long delay, I've had a few things come up in IRL recently that have taken my time away from Wikipedia. I should have the review up soon though. The Night Watch (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)