DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Easy Delivery Co.

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by Chlod (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Chlod (say hi!) 07:36, 1 December 2025 (UTC).[reply]

GA review

[edit]
Unsuccessful. toby (t)(c)(rw) 23:04, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Easy Delivery Co./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chlod (talk · contribs) 16:41, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tarlby (talk · contribs) 23:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Toby

[edit]

I would love to review this article, but I unfortunately have to quick-fail this per criteria 1 of WP:GAFAIL. The development section is 3 sentences long and barely developed; this is a vital section of any video game page which is not currently broad enough. Please reach me at my talk page once this is addressed! toby (t)(c)(rw) 23:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Easy Delivery Co./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chlod (talk · contribs) 01:47, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Chlod. Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... first checking the previous GA review. It seems like the nomination failed because the development section was not developed enough. It seems like it's been expanded since then so I'll proceed with the review. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • The lede could be expanded a bit, to include information about the game's development. It reads well as of now, but I'll check it again once you expand it a bit.
  • Explain what low poly models are. A general reader will not understand that term.
  • The rest of the gameplay section reads well.
  • "who had shut down" Seb shut down? How is this possible? I'm left confused by the second paragraph.
  • Notes should end with references.
  • What is Blockbench?
  • "Real photographs" real seems redundant to me.
  • Engine and platform in the infobox seem to be unsourced.
  • Images have appropriate rationales.
  • All sources are reliable - there are three primary sources.
  • Before spotchecking, I'd like to ask you to add timestamps to the video sources, as this is required for verifiability. When we cite books, we also need to cite pages inside the books. Same goes for videos. Use the {{rp}} template.

The article is short but in good shape now. These minor issues will make the article look better. I'll perform a spotcheck once these issues get resolved. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]