Talk:Brain Challenge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Brain Challenge was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: March 23, 2008
Brain Challenge was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 25, 2008
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed by WikiProject Video games.
VG To-do:

[edit] GAN Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    One of the main flaws of the article. I read the article and understand it concerns "brain-training puzzles," yet there are no examples of what those puzzles are like. If I were someone who was unaware of the other, similar games (Brain Age, etc.), and unwilling to look into them, then this article would not be able to inform me of the core component of the gameplay. A few examples of some of the puzzles and how to play them would be a welcome addition.
    B. Focused:
    See above.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Images are fully cited for fair use, but the gallery layout in which they are presented is an issue. It is clear that there are various versions of the game, but unless they differ so significantly as to be unrecognizable save in terms of the title, there is probably no need for this. Cut down the images to two or so and incorporate them into the rest of the article (unless you have a rationale for keeping them all which I am unaware of or cannot see for myself).
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Unfortunately, I cannot pass the article as is. The image issue did not factor significantly into this assessment, but is something that needs dealing with. The article itself is too vague and missing key details. It sounds like a generic description of any one of a dozen such puzzle games, and leaves much to be desired in terms of actual gameplay. The multiplayer section could also use some elaboration (what are the capabilities of the multiplayer? Is there only a limited selection of games that can be played there? Are there any significant differences between multiplayer and single player gameplay?). In any case, if these problems are addressed, the article should be able to successfully meet the criteria in a second GAN. I hope this has been able to help you in improving the article. Deltagreen23 (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Whew, nice formatting :p The images do differ significantly enough (ie. XBLA version uses widescreen, etc.) Furthermore, I've seen other articles with more similar looking versions than this. I think the main issue is gameplay description - if someone out there has played each version in depth, please contribute. I forgot the "expand section" tag, so if you can slap it on there. Thanks for the guidance. JAF1970 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I once again suggest you take on board some of the advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Brain Challenge. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renomination for GA

I made the Gameplay a little more in depth, describing various types of tests from each sphere. As for gallery, I sincerely believe that belongs, as each version's appearance is different from the others'. JAF1970 (talk) 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Fix the bare references, or else it will never pass. {{citeweb|url=|title=|publisher=|author=|date=|accessdate=}} etc...--haha169 (talk) 01:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Will do. Done. JAF1970 (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another GA review

I hate to say it, and sorry, but again this doesn't meet the criteria for depth. There's no information on development of the game, and still very little in the reception section considering the numbers of reviews in the reviewbox. (Incidentally, that should be formatted better—try {{vg reviews}} or just copy an FA.) There are still significant fair use image issues. Again, I urge you to take on board the feedback at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Brain Challenge. Thanks, dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)