Article(edit |visual edit |history) ·Article talk(edit |history) ·Watch

Nominator:ActuallyElite (talk·contribs)23:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer:Z-Gamer Guys (talk·contribs)20:18, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be tackling this good article review. But first, there are a few issues that need to be addressed before I do a more in-depth review.

Last updated: 18:12, 6 February 2026 (UTC) by ActuallyElite

Seewhat the criteria are andwhat they are not

1)Well-written

1a) the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

1b) it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation

2)Verifiable withno original research, as shown by asource spot-check

2a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline

2b)reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose)

2c) it containsno original research

2d) it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism

According toEarwig, there is a 69.3% similarity, however, this is likely from a website that copied from Wikipedia at some point. The next highest similarity percentage is 35.9%, which is fine.

3)Broad in its coverage

3a) it addresses themain aspects of the topic

3b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style)

4)Neutral:

4)Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

5)Stable:

5)Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute

6)Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio

6a) media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content

6b) media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable captions

Overall:

• Unfortunately, according toWP:VG/S, many sources in this article are deemed unreliable. I will list the following sources that need to be removed and/or replaced.
  • IGN Wiki Guides (User-generated content)
  • Power Up Gaming
  • Gaming Nexus
  • VGChartz (User-generated sales data)
• I am unsure about these sources as they are not listed anywhere onWP:VG/S. Not saying they are completely unreliable, just that I have no basis for reliability. If you can establish credibility for them, then they can remain as sources for the article.
  • TrueAchievements and TrueTrophies
  • DANAMIC
  • Rocket Chainsaw

 Done I changed all those sources to sources considered reliable onWP:VG/S.— Precedingunsigned comment added byActuallyElite (talk •contribs)

The reception section is another area that requires improvement, as I'm not sure I will be able to promote the article in its current state. Each comment from the publications is taken from their summary of the game as a whole (more specifically, what is summarized on Metacritic), so it doesn't really explain what parts of the game critics liked, disliked, or had mixed opinions on. Additionally, keep review scores out of the writing, as that is what the table on the right side is for, and be sure to italicize publications such asElectronic Gaming Monthly andGameSpot in writing. I also see an overreliance on quotes, with the quote from GameSpot being far too long. Quotes are good to use, but best used sparingly or best used to illustrate a more specific view on the game. Since large chunks of quotes are the only points used in this section, it reads more as plagiarism than general reception.

If you want an example of a good article I contributed to for reference,Kirby's Dream Collection contains quotes and paraphrases from certain critics, but it also has more universal statements attributed to multiple sources. The following sentence appears in the article: "Critics praised the quality of the games and the amount of content included in the collection, though some criticized the awkward use of the Virtual Console interface when switching games". This opinion is shared across three sources, thus giving a more general overview of what people thought of the game. This allows you to use more sources and create a more accurate summation of critical opinion, as there are currently many sources (Computer Games Magazine,Giant Bomb,Official Xbox Magazine (UK),Game Informer,GameRevolution, etc.) that are not used in the article itself, only appearing in the infobox.

I understand it is a big task to overhaul the reception section, and I'm not sure if I will be able to pass the review until it is done. That being said, I am willing to wait a bit to see what progress has been made, and will judge what to do with this review from there.

While the sources are all of good quality, their usage is not up to the standard of a good article, primarily in the Gameplay section. Looking at the opening paragraph for instance, I checked the source from Destructoid and it made no comment on any of the playable characters besides "Super Brainz", meaning the rest of the paragraph violates the rule against no original research (WP:OR). This may mean that more sources are needed to verify some of the statements in the article, or more sources are needed per paragraph to verify individual claims. Think of your sources as a check to prove the points in the article, because right now, they don't verify ALL of the gameplay elements. If details aren't included in the sources, they shouldn't be mentioned, as they are not notable enough to include. This may mean cutting back on the specificity of certain claims as to not go into unnecessary detail. Here are some examples to get you on the right track to matching words to sources:

• All of the playable characters and their costumes are mentioned by this source:1.
• Since microtransactions are discussed in the reception, a claim should be added about coins being a collectible item in the game.1
• I don't think all the returning plants and zombies need to be mentioned individually, but if some are more important than others or different from the original game, this source may be helpful:1
• Other potentially useful sources:1,2
• The largest concern I have is in the section dedicated to the gameplay modes. Round lengths, some elements of gameplay, the RV being named Penny, and more claims are not verifiable with the provided sources. This may mean trimming the section down to what can be easily verified and removing the sub-header for the Single Player, Co-Op, and Multiplayer sections, making them individual paragraphs instead. -Z-Gamer Guys (talk)20:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Done, removed some content that couldn't be accurately sourced or was already mentioned by another source. The usage should be good now.ActuallyElite (talk)18:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have any further questions or points needing clarification, you may ask them below. Thank you. -Z-Gamer Guys (talk)00:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z-Gamer Guys I completely overhauled the reception section, and I feel as if it's better than what it was. Thanks for the reference of Kirby's Dream Collection, I roughly followed it. Are there any problems you see from this area that I can fix?ActuallyElite (talk)21:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]