Talk:Balatro/GA2
GA review
[edit ]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Lankyant (talk · contribs) 17:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Reviewer: Monathephantom (talk · contribs) 02:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- a (prose, spelling, grammar, and understandability): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- 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):
- a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- c:
- c:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments
[edit ]Hello! This is my first time reviewing a GA nom! I'll begin reviewing it now. Monathephantom (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
[edit ]Passes. Every nonfree image has been tagged with a vaild nonfree rationale, and one is completely free on Wikimedia Commons. Monathephantom (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
It is stable
[edit ]Passes, Aside from a tiny edit war in March, this article is stable. No merge or any other templates found. Monathephantom (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
It follows the neutral point of view policy
[edit ]Reviewed the article, and it feels pretty unbiased and neutral, so pass. Monathephantom (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
It is reasonably well written.
[edit ]Passes as well! Everything follows MoS, and it is a very well written article. Monathephantom (talk) 11:11, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
It is broad in its coverage.
[edit ]Everything, including the gameplay and reception is elaborated on very well, so this passes. Monathephantom (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
[edit ]Lets do this one by one; Everything in this article is backed up by reliable sources, and I couldnt find any original research or copyvios and plagarism wheen using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and i don't have any issues with this part of the article, everything is verified very well. So, pass. Monathephantom (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
GA Review
[edit ]In general, Balatro passes. Lankyant, good job with this one article! Monathephantom (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
Suggestions
[edit ]Usually on Wikipedia, it's common for video game articles to start with "X is a {Year} {Genre} video game", so i think changing the lead to "Balatro is a 2024 poker-themed roguelike deck-building game.." and adding the year would be better and more consistent with the other articles. Monathephantom (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- I'm not putting this in the actual review as it isnt big enough for me to fail the ga or put it on hold. But i think this would just make it more consistent with video game articles Monathephantom (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]
- Done Lankyant (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC) [reply ]