42:
338:
After reviewing the citations, Along with the other things stated above. I see absolutely no reason to deny this article. 2 things of interest however. Im not one to jump the gun, so I'll wait for these to get fixed first. 1. Lack of citation in "Plot", This entire section does not have any citation
282:
In the head itself we can see a mention of the game having initial poor reception, but it also immediately mentions that it was revered later. This trend continued throughout the article until the reception section, Which is not applicable to neutrality as the reception quotes are sourced and cited.
324:
This article contains several contextual images. Some being from the game, The games cover art, or A person or people involved with the project. ALl images appear to be under fair use according to their
Wikimedia tags with the exception of a photo of Shigeru Miyamoto which is tagged with CC By 4.0.
205:
Looking through this article, Each claim is cited with an appropriate source and I cannot see any evidence that original research was done here. As for the sources in question, I will be looking through them carefully. But as of right now, The names attached to them appear to be verifiable and all
271:
This article gives great detail on the plot, gameplay, reception, awards, and legacy, All of which are similarly weighted in terms of length, while at the same time, not going too off topic. (the most off topic thing i could find was the beyonce mention in Legacy, however that was 1 sentence and
165:
I am PerryPerryD, I am the new reviewer for this article. Judging by what I can see, I do not have any immediate issues on this article. I will be analyzing this article thoroughly to the best of my ability, I do request the help of other editors to identify issues I may miss. Good Luck.
347:
of the sources, you can review a percentage of them picked at random, say, 10 to 25 percent. If the majority of them check out and are valid to sourcing the claim, it gives a good assumption that the sources are reliable. If not, the process is repeated until it does.
191:
4.Layout. The layout appears to match the manual of style perfectly, With everything in the proper order as far as I can tell. 1 Side note however, I would recommend adding a "See also" section that links the reader to rabbids or rayman for example.
176:
This article does not use words that only video game savvy people can understand, therefor I believe that this article can be understood by a broad audience. All terms that may be perceived as confusing are hyperlinked to other articles.
187:
3.Lead section. The lead section contains 3 equally long paragraphs that describe the game, publisher, games reception, and unveiling without making it too long for the reader. Capitalization and formatting appears to be correct.
236:
After reviewing the citations, Other than the one stated above, They all come from reliable sources and none of the work appears to be plagerized. If possible, however, I would advise citing contents of the "Plot" section.
183:
2.Fiction. Analyzing this article, All sections that involve
Fiction (Such as Plot) do not tie in with real world events or make them seem like real world events. Therefor, This article is good on Fiction.
313:
According to the history tab, As of this current time, this article has not been the victim of any edit warring. The edits appear to be made in collaboration and good faith. I see no sign of instability.
47:
126:
325:
The images are not out of place and align with the context of the specific sections of the article. All images are captioned with the captions being descriptive and professional.
122:
107:
52:
382:
Thank you Panini for your quick response and fixes. With all of the issues I provided now fixed, I now see absolutely no reason to deny this article. Review
Concluded.
99:
80:
70:
180:
1. Words to Watch. After carefully reviewing the article, I cannot find any words that need to be replaced. All words seem to show equal bias.
339:
on its contents or information. If possible, Please cite. 2. Inconsistency. Please determine if the name is "Beep-0" or "Beep-O". Thank you.
343:
Although I'm not stopping you (source reviews are always lovely), you can do something instead called a "spotcheck"; instead of looking at
115:
17:
206:
have
Knowledge articles of their own. I will continue to analyze each source carefully. ((This might take a while, Please be patient)).
397:
283:
The author(s) of the article do not express any of their own opinions on the game itself in the specific article in question. (: -->
254:
225:
156:
92:
75:
393:
372:
250:
221:
150:
385:
242:
213:
401:
376:
360:
300:
258:
229:
160:
210:
1 Citation removed due to it not mentioning the detail it was citing. (previously citation 6.)
357:
297:
389:
368:
246:
217:
146:
195:
5.Lists. This article does not contain any lists. therefor this section is not necessary.
349:
289:
272:
because it was in the Legacy section, does not apply to off topic).
134:
103:
8:
30:
367:Perfect timing, Thats exactly what I did
61:
33:
7:
18:Talk:Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle
24:
1:
418:
402:00:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
377:00:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
361:00:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
301:00:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
259:23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
230:23:55, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
161:19:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
199:Citations and Sources
288:Eh, it was alright.
284::( Thanks panini)
388:comment added by
245:comment added by
216:comment added by
89:
88:
409:
404:
356:
352:
296:
292:
261:
232:
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
417:
416:
412:
411:
410:
408:
407:
406:
383:
354:
350:
294:
290:
262:
240:
211:
170:Manual of Style
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
415:
413:
380:
379:
364:
363:
336:
335:
333:
328:
322:
321:
319:
311:
310:
308:
304:
303:
280:
279:
277:
269:
268:
266:
239:
234:
233:
203:
202:
200:
174:
173:
171:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
414:
405:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
378:
374:
370:
366:
365:
362:
359:
353:
346:
342:
341:
340:
334:
331:
330:
329:
326:
320:
317:
316:
315:
309:
306:
305:
302:
299:
293:
287:
286:
285:
278:
275:
274:
273:
267:
264:
263:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
238:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
209:
208:
207:
201:
198:
197:
196:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:
172:
169:
168:
167:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
384:— Preceding
381:
344:
337:
327:
323:
318:Illustration
312:
281:
270:
241:— Preceding
235:
212:— Preceding
204:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
175:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
390:PerryPerryD
369:PerryPerryD
247:PerryPerryD
218:PerryPerryD
147:PerryPerryD
104:visual edit
332:Conclusion
276:Neutrality
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
307:Stability
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
398:contribs
386:unsigned
265:Coverage
255:contribs
243:unsigned
226:contribs
214:unsigned
157:contribs
76:Criteria
351:Panini!
291:Panini!
127:history
108:history
94:Article
136:Watch
16:<
394:talk
373:talk
251:talk
222:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
345:all
400:)
396:•
375:)
358:🥪
298:🥪
257:)
253:•
228:)
224:•
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
392:(
371:(
355:•
295:•
249:(
220:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.