Login
Login

Talk:Wordle/GA1

GA review

{{atopg

| status =

| result = Passed. Locust member (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

}}

{{Good article tools}}

{{al|{{#titleparts:Wordle/GA1|-1}}|noname=yes}}
:This review is transcluded from Talk:Wordle/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: {{User|Nub098765}} 20:41, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Locust member (talk · contribs) 02:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I'll take this on at some point soon. Locust member (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

:Alrighty! Thank you very much! Nub098765 (talk) 04:45, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

class="wikitable" style="width: 100%; width:50em"
height=50 | GA review
{{small|(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)}}
#It is reasonably well written.

  1. :a (prose, spelling, and grammar): {{GAList/check|y}}
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): {{GAList/check|y}}
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
  3. :a (references): {{GAList/check|y}}
    b (citations to reliable sources): {{GAList/check|y}}
    c (OR): {{GAList/check|y}}
    d (copyvio and plagiarism): {{GAList/check|y}}
  4. It is broad in its coverage.
  5. :a (major aspects): {{GAList/check|y}}
    b (focused): {{GAList/check|y}}
  6. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
  7. :Fair representation without bias: {{GAList/check|y}}
  8. It is stable.
  9. :No edit wars, etc.: {{GAList/check|y}}
  10. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
  11. :a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): {{GAList/check|y}}
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions): {{GAList/check|y}}
style="text-align:center;" |

Overall:

Pass/Fail: {{GAList/check|y}}

height=30|15px · 15px · 15px · 15px

  • In the infobox, {{tq|The New York Times Games}} should be italicized
  • Indeed it should. Done.
  • {{red|Jotto}} {{strike|should be italicized}} should be wikilinked in body and unitalicized in the lead since its article page does not italicize itself
  • Fair enough. Done.
  • Why are {{red|Quordle}} and {{red|Heardle}} mentioned in lead? nothing in body makes them stand out among the other recreations, so I think none should be named in lead
  • I mean, that's fair. Removed.
  • {{red|Wordle was later added to the New York Times Crossword app}} in lead should have an italicized Wordle
  • Whoopsies!
  • I'd mention its reception in lead
  • I tried to do that with "The game was well-received," but I understand that that's probably not the best way to do it. I'm not sure how to do it while making it flow well.
  • No worries! Now that I realize that was talking also about the critical reception section I think it works.
  • {{red|as it takes more attempts for people to solve than if they start with words such as "slate"}} - this kinda confused me. "slate" is only one word given but the sentence says "words"; I would recommend including "slate", "crane", and "trace" since that is what NYT gives
  • Sure. Done.
  • {{red|on April 7, 2022, WordleBot was launched by the New York Times}} NYT should be italicized here (or, you could just refer to it as "the Times" like you have been throughout the section)
  • Yeah, I struggle with making the article self-referential. Done.
  • in these instances: {{red|appointed Tracy Bennett as Wordle’s dedicated editor}}, {{red|as not part of Wardle’s original word list}}, {{red|Lizzie O’Leary}}, {{red|the game’s original unpredictability}}, {{red|More significantly, Wordle’s popularity}}, {{red|digital game’s mechanics}}, {{red|Other clones retained Wordle’s mechanics}}, {{red|adopted the “-le” suffix}}, {{red|The game’s success also spurred}}, {{red|also appeared on Apple’s App Store}}, {{red|following Wordle’s standard rules}} - turn the curly apostrophes/quotations into straight ones
  • Agh. Dang curly apostrophes. Done.
  • {{red|Charlie Hall of Polygon's criticized the game's board game adaptation}} - {{tq|Charlie Hall of Polygon criticized the game's board game adaptation}} I think the {{red|'s}} was an accident?
  • Indeed it was. Fixed.
  • The article seems to switch between calling the NYT (after first mention) "the Times", "New York Times" (no "the"), or "The New York Times" (with a "the"). I feel like there should be consistency here as it can get confusing. the reader may think: "Wait, is "The Times" different from NYT?" I don't have a preferred one, but I would rather it be consistent throughout for clarity and less confusion
  • Sure. The New York Times it is. Though I feel like "the New York Times" refers to the same thing as "New York Times" and it depends on context whether you'd use the "the" or not.
  • Agreed, but thank you for making it consistent throughout!
  • This sentence: {{red|In collaboration with The New York Times, Hasbro developed Wordle: The Party Game, a physical board game adaptation of the online game. Designed for two to four players, one participant selects a secret word each round while the others attempt to guess it, following Wordle’s standard rules. The game was released in October 2022.}} comes after the explanation of it receiving a negative review in the same section. also, "board game" is wikilinked here, but not in its first mention. Is it possible to have the mention of it being adapted to the board earlier so the negative review from Hall of Polygon has more context?
  • Yeah that's something I thought about as well. I guess it could be placed in the "history" section, although the section is specfically for "adaptations and clones." Should I change it?
  • I like the way you positioned it now!
  • In the See also section, the NYT mention in {{red|Casual games by The New York Times}} should be italicized
  • Well, that comes from the actual article "The New York Times Games". I'd have to change the actual article short desc.
  • Ahh I see, alright
  • No unreliable sources used
  • The article is fairly stable, with most recent edits from nom and there is not a persistent edit war going on
  • The article is neutral
  • All images in the article are in the public domain due to not passing the threshold of originality
  • [https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=1&title=Wordle Earwig] reports violation unlikely at a highest of 20.0%
  • The article is broad and does not veer off topic

Spot-check

  • I ran [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/technology/wordle-word-game-creator.html [15]], [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/03/wordle-creator-describes-games-rise-says-nyt-sale-was-a-way-to-walk-away/ [23]], [https://www.vanityfair.com/news/inside-the-new-york-times-big-bet-on-games [40]], and [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/03/how-the-new-york-times-managed-to-avoid-ruining-wordle/ [47]] through a spot-check and found no issues

Overall

{{ping|Nub098765}} This is a well-written, well-researched, and well-presented article. The only issues I have are in prose and are very limited. I had a fun time reading this and am very proud!! Ping me once things are addressed :-) Locust member (talk) 21:11, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

: {{ping|Locust member}} Thank you!! I've addressed everything (I think) and am looking forward to your response! Nub098765 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

::Nicely done! I think everything looks good now and am happy to {{pass}} this! Was a pleasure working with you :-) Locust member (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}