User talk:Eviolite

If you learn to read, then you will see the article supplied mentions the person's direct involvement. They are just opinionated edits when you cannot review the source and you act as a strange arbiter of notability - especially when you are clearly not from the area being discussed - this comes off as unnecessary. How would you know what local sources are notable when you aren't local? Further vandalism on your part will result in a ban from editing the Dimes Square cultural page. (This is the nice way of calling you a parasocial orbiter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humblejones (talk • contribs) 15:52, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Overall, the Reception section looks nice. One thing reviewers will be looking for, however, is comprehensiveness; does this section include every common critical opinion without leaving things out? Since there are only five reviews, it's easier for the reviewers to see if you did or not. I saw you were struggling with writing a good reception section, so here's a new strategy I started using. It's currently present on Paper Mario: Color Splash for reference:

First, I made five bullet points of what I assumed would be the most common of all critical reviews. Color Splash had a different set, but these four should apply to this game.

Writing and narrative

Art and graphics

Gameplay

Other (if needed)

Next, I read each review one at a time, and anything they said that fell into any of these categories, I put down for future use. I also generalize the bullet points further if needed. For the sake of example, I'm stealing lines from your article, so some things might be out of context.

Writing, narrative, and soundtrack

• Jordan Loades from Nintendo World Report, who noted that the soundtrack "offers an incredible yet melancholic backdrop"

Art and graphics

Gameplay and mechanics

• Loades largely considered it and the repetitive gameplay a negative.
• Loades also thought that the level design was uninspired, with the puzzle elements seeming more like annoyances.

Other (if needed)

Writing, narrative, and soundtrack

• Jordan Loades from Nintendo World Report, who noted that the soundtrack "offers an incredible yet melancholic backdrop"
• Andy Chalk of PC Gamer stated that it "plays one of the best videogame soundtracks [he's] heard in ages".
• Byrd, writing for The Washington Post, applauded the game's use of references to science fiction novels and films.
• Castle, who called the station "[the game's] greatest weapon against any grinding or gnashing of teeth" and "just so darn soothing".[

Art and graphics

• Chalk writing that "the real hook, though, is everything that's going on in the background".
• Reynolds of Nintendo Life found some of the neon signs to be "needlessly childish" or inappropriate and that they "pulled [him] out of an otherwise pretty engaging and deep narrative".

Gameplay and mechanics

• Loades largely considered it and the repetitive gameplay a negative.
• Loades also thought that the level design was uninspired, with the puzzle elements seeming more like annoyances.
• Byrd praised Golf Club: Wasteland's simple mechanics
• Wood of PlayStation LifeStyle found the gameplay highly frustrating, with inconsistent swings, necessary trial and error to determine the correct path, and long animations required to restart each stage; he stated that the golf "is simply not all that fun" and that he wished the developers focused more on secrets and interactions rather than "making frustratingly difficult levels that require lobs to barely reachable and tiny platforms
• Castle felt that the distance of shots could be difficult to judge and thought it could be clarified with color coding.
  

After, I removed the headers and bullet points and mushed all the lines together.

Jordan Loades from Nintendo World Report, who noted that the soundtrack "offers an incredible yet melancholic backdrop". Andy Chalk of PC Gamer stated that it "plays one of the best videogame soundtracks [he's] heard in ages". Byrd, writing for The Washington Post, applauded the game's use of references to science fiction novels and films. Castle, who called the station "[the game's] greatest weapon against any grinding or gnashing of teeth" and "just so darn soothing".[

Chalk writing that "the real hook, though, is everything that's going on in the background". Reynolds of Nintendo Life found some of the neon signs to be "needlessly childish" or inappropriate and that they "pulled [him] out of an otherwise pretty engaging and deep narrative".

Loades largely considered it and the repetitive gameplay a negative. Loades also thought that the level design was uninspired, with the puzzle elements seeming more like annoyances. Byrd praised Golf Club: Wasteland's simple mechanics. Wood of PlayStation LifeStyle found the gameplay highly frustrating, with inconsistent swings, necessary trial and error to determine the correct path, and long animations required to restart each stage; he stated that the golf "is simply not all that fun" and that he wished the developers focused more on secrets and interactions rather than "making frustratingly difficult levels that require lobs to barely reachable and tiny platforms. Castle felt that the distance of shots could be difficult to judge and thought it could be clarified with color coding.

When all of this is put into perspective, I can see that there wasn't too much to say about graphics and art. Are these two points the only things across all the critic reviews?
When I mush all these lines together, I mix in the transitions, shake up the writing style, sprinkle in some quotes, yadda yadda. In the end, Paper Mario: Color Splash#Reception results. Please let me know if this makes any sense. I'm very short on time right now, so thoughts might be scrambled a bit. Panini! • 🥪 17:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Panini!: Thanks for the feedback! This looks like a good plan, will try it out. eviolite (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The first round of the 2026 WikiCup ended on 26 February. As some of you may have noticed, good article nomination reviews now receive 10 points, an increase from 5 points in the previous year, as per a consensus at WT:CUP. This point increase has been retroactively applied to all good article reviews for which competitors have claimed points in this round. Peer reviews, which continue to be worth 5 points, are now listed in the same section as featured article candidate reviews, rather than with good article reviews. Everyone who competed in round 1 will advance to round 2 unless they have withdrawn or been banned. No other changes to the round-point system have been made for this year.

Round 1 was competitive. Three contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and the top 16 contestants all scored more than 300 round points. The following competitors scored more than 800 round points:

• Bgsu98 (submissions) with 1,467 round points, largely gained from 1 featured article, 5 featured lists, 15 good articles, and 42 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Olliefant (submissions) with 1,246 round points, largely from 4 featured lists, 9 good articles, 2 featured topic articles, 4 did you know articles, and 75 FAC and GAN reviews;
• Generalissima (submissions) with 1,095 round points, largely from 3 featured articles, 6 good articles, and 5 did you know articles;
• MCE89 (submissions) with 848 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 32 FAC and GAN reviews; and
• Rollinginhisgrave (submissions) with 838 round points, largely from 1 featured article, 8 good articles, 1 did you know article, and 14 FAC, GAN, and peer reviews.

The full scores for round 1 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 7 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 2 featured-topic articles, 168 good articles, 13 good-topic articles and more than 50 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 14 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 700 reviews. The tournament points table will be updated within the next few days.

Remember that any content promoted after 26 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)