Talk:Usagi Shima

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.

---

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

Nominator: Reconrabbit (talk · contribs) 16:10, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: BigLordFlash (talk · contribs) 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I will review this article. If you have any questions just talk to me on my talk page. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@BigLordFlash: I've responded to all of your remarks. -- Reconrabbit 21:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

@Reconrabbit: You didnt respond to the 1.B remark. The list format is not the best option because it only has two points and it seems to be written in prose. BigLordFlash^talk 15:08, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

I combined sentences. just now. I missed the note as it was above everything else in the review. -- Reconrabbit 15:11, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I left some comments below. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the Gameplay section, the list of currencies can be written in prose. The list format is not the most appropriate. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   It has a list of all references. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could 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):

   I did a spot-check below. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   No original research. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyright violations (Earwig) BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   All the main aspects are addressed. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   It stays focused on the topic. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   It's totally neutral. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   It is stable. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   No copyright issues. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images have suitable captions. BigLordFlash^talk 12:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   It's a very well written article, without any problems, and meets the criteria for Good Article. I will pass this one. Congratulations! BigLordFlash^talk 18:57, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Comments

Lead section

• Gameplay based off of that of could be Gameplay inspired by
  • TouchArcade states that it was "an inspiration" obliquely so that makes sense. Changed.

Gameplay

• set up a store could be establish a store
  • Removed this whole part as not in the PG article it's cited to
• The player could be Players
  • Done
• overuse of the word "island"
  • Reduced this usage in the first paragraph
• via the use of could be using
  • Done ><
• will appear that sells hats could be appears, offering hats
  • changed to suggested - "selling" isn't explicit

Development

• Add italics for Usagi Shima
  • Done
• The game’s graphics were drawn in Krita could be Its graphics were created using Krita
  • Done
• included or were about rabbits could be featuring or focusing on rabbits
  • I can't even find where this is sourced to so I'm removing it.

Reception

• reviewed the game favorably, praising the visual style and low-pressure gameplay, and gave it a perfect score could be reviewed the game favorably, praising its visual style and low-pressure gameplay, and awarded it a perfect score
  • Done
• slightly less favorable could be somewhat less favorable
  • Done
• In the final sentence, you can start with "Ultimately..." to show that it is the last thing to be said
  • I don't see this as an improvement. -RR

Spot-check

Based on this version

• 1 - N Not the best source to use. No proofs of being a reliable source.
  • Gry-Online is listed as reliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources based on multiple discussions. -RR
• 2 - N Need to be archived
• 3 - Y
• 4 - Y
• 5 - N Need to be archived
• 6 - Y
• 7 - Y
• 8 - Y
• 9 - Y
• 10 - Y
• 11 - N Need to be archived
• 12 - Y
• 13 - Y
• 14 - Y
• 15 - Y
• 16 - N Need to be archived
• 17 - Y
  • Archives made. -RR

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.