Talk:Angry Birds Go!/GA1

GA review

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.

---

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

Nominator: SleepyRedHair (talk · contribs) 19:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 21:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Forthcoming. λ NegativeMP1 21:51, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Prose

• A few instances of "the game" could be replaced with "it", see WP:THEGAME
• "Karts take damage upon impacts and can be upgraded, altering their appearance" So does only one here or both alter their appearance?
• The game's microtransactions are not discussed in Gameplay
• Development and Release are short enough and cover roughly similar stuff (e.g. announcement info) to the point where I think they could be merged into one "Development and release" section.
• Reception should be reworked to utilize topic paragraphs, each focusing on what reviews thought on a specific aspect of the game. Simply repeating the scores and having some takeaways from them is uninformative when the review box exists. See WP:RECEPTION

Media

• The source of the infobox image is a dead link; the image shown at that URL at present is different
• Both media files are justified and look good otherwise

Sources

• Spotchecked certain uses of 1, 7, and 19. All look fine.

Final comments

Overall a pretty good but short read. Will put this on hold to give you time to address the above comments. λ NegativeMP1 00:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Made an edit to address most of these issues. I will get to the rest, namely the reception rewrite and infobox image, at a later date (within the 7-day limit of course). I cannot seem to find a better source for the image, so should I perhaps change it to the original splash screen, seeing as that's used in a lot of reliable sources? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt just using the one on the Angry Birds Wiki on Fandom would suffice. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 18:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1: The reception has been written per Prose comment #5. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 14:35, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox image and dead-link source have been replaced. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 16:32, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 Hi, the review has now been on hold for 15 days, even though I implemented all suggestions 6 days ago. Is the review still active? Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 19:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@SleepyRedHair: I'm sorry, I've been distracted with other things.

Anyways, the Reception section still feels... incomplete? It feels quite short without much essence of the reviews actually shown. The IGN score is still included also, even though it's already apparent from the review box. λ NegativeMP1 23:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@NegativeMP1 That's alright, no worries. I've removed the repeated IGN score, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "incomplete". Sure it might be kinda short, but this is all of the reviews that exist as far as I'm aware. Should I add more points of praise and criticism from each source? Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 12:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, adding more points would be better, and then organizing the section to be based on common vocal points. Again, I'd see WP:RECEPTION for an example of what I am talking about. λ NegativeMP1 19:04, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Implemented suggestions to the best of my ability. Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 23:50, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Alright, what's there now looks a lot more substantial than what was there prior. I'll be passing this now, good job. λ NegativeMP1 16:40, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

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.