Talk:Angry Birds Star Wars II

Character Listing

While a character list is inappropriate for the article, it can be on the Talk page so people can see the content.

Angry Birds

• Qui-Gon Jinn, lightsaber
• Obi-Wan Kenobi, object moving
• Yoda, bounce
• Jar Jar Binks, hook
• Anakin Episode 1, direction change
• Captain Panaka, gun
• Padme, object pushing
• Anakin Episode 2, lightsaber
• Jedi Youngling, dividing in 3
• Mace Windu, boomerang throwing
• Chewbacca, crushing
• R2-D2, electricity
• C-3PO, explode into pieces
• Han Solo, pistol
• Leia, object pulling
• Pilot Luke, lightsaber
• Endor Luke, lightsaber
• Jedi Luke, lightsaber

Evil Pigs

• Jango Fett, rocket
• Darth Sidious, electricity
• Battle Droid, gun
• Darth Maul, lightsaber
• Count Dooku, boomerang throwing
• Droideka, bounce
• Zam Wessel, hook
• General Grievous, lightsaber
• Anakin Episode 3, object moving
• Biker Scout, direction change
• Stormtrooper, gun
• TIE Fighter Pilot, gun
• Darth Vader, object moving
• Boba Fett, rocket — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frmorrison (talk • contribs) 20:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Angry Birds Star Wars II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SleepyRedHair (talk · contribs) 19:58, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I'll review this! nub :) 20:15, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for the 4-day delay. Every time I went to work on this review, it was late at night and my debile brain figured sleep was more important. I hope you can appreciate my comments regardless.

1a. prose

Overall, the prose in this short article is pretty well-written. I only have a few comments:

• "It introduces pigs being playable in the same fashion as the birds..." — This gerund construction is awkward to me. I feel like if you wanted to emphasize the parallelism, perhaps you could formulate it as "It introduces the ability to play as pigs in the same fashion as the birds..."
• "Criticism in the review from the latter newspaper was limited to the lack of synchronicity of save data between the iPad and iPhone." — I presume you mean "synchronization"? Because synchronicity is a concept that...uh...I don't think is very related to save data.
• "The core game formula was covered to be largely unchanged..." — "Covered" is a bit of an odd verb here. Perhaps "found" would be better?
• "Several critics were let down by the challenge significantly decreasing..." — This construction is clunky. Perhaps you could say "Several critics were let down by the significant decrease in challenge" or, alternatively, "significant decrease in difficulty".
• "However, sources as Common Sense Media and EP Daily were still critical of this system..." — Sources such as, I presume?
• Do any sources describe the core Angry Birds mechanism? I know how Angry Birds works—I've been on the internet for more than two seconds—but a reader uninitiated in Angry Birds gameplay might benefit from the explanation. Even if it's brief, I think an explanation of how Angry Birds works could be beneficial.
• None of the authors of the reviews in the Reception section are named in the prose—it's just their outlets. Could you name the authors, if possible? nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

1b. MoS compliance

For the most part, this is MoS-compliant (no excessive whitespace, well-defined sections, no one-sentence paragraphs, etc.), but I have two specific complaints about this article:

• Several passages are cited with four or five references, which I would argue constitutes WP:OVERCITE (an essay, yes, but one that I think defines the policies pretty well). For example, "It was released worldwide for Android, iOS, and Windows Phone 8 on September 19, 2013," is cited to four references, the first of which (from The Guardian) probably corroborates it enough (looking at the title). I would condense the number of citations to one or two per non-contentious claim (because, like, who is arguing that this game wasn't released on September 19, 2013?) or, in the case of the reception section, consolidate them into one note.
• The gameplay image and the infobox MOS:SANDWICH the first paragraph of Gameplay, at least on my screen. Perhaps you could put the image on the right, so it appears below the infobox? nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

2a. list of references

There is indeed a well-formatted list of references at the bottom of this page, yes. nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

2b. reliable sources

For the most part, the sources cited in this article (The Guardian, Kotaku, PC Mag, Pocket Gamer, The Verge, etc.) are indeed reliable. However, I can't seem to find any WP:RSP or WP:NPPSG or WP:VG/S entry that codifies "Financial Post"'s reliability. Could you justify its use in this article? nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

2c. original research

To make sure this article contains no original research, I will now conduct a spotcheck of its citations.

This table lists 15 random passages from throughout the article (40.5% of 37 total passages). These passages contain 33 inline citations (35.9% of 92 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script. ~~~~

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Gameplay
Angry Birds Star Wars II follows the gameplay of its predecessor, Angry Birds Star Wars, as well as previous Angry Birds games.
1	a	theguardian.com	web.archive.org		I don't see this anywhere. It says "That follows the pattern laid down by the first Angry Birds Star Wars game", but this (presumably) refers to the paid nature of the game.
2	a	theguardian.com	web.archive.org		This one corroborates the passage, though.
3	a	kotaku.com	web.archive.org		I don't see this here.
it includes 30 characters from the films,
6	a	theguardian.com	web.archive.org		Says "more than 30."
It is the first main entry in the Angry Birds series in which the player can play as the pigs, who represent Sith characters (referred to as the "Pork Side") such as Jango Fett, Darth Maul, and Darth Sidious.
4	b	uk.pcmag.com	web.archive.org		Everything but "Jango Fett" and "Darth Sidious" is corroborated.
Characters from the original trilogy such as Boba Fett, Chewbacca, Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker, and the Stormtroopers also appear.
2	c	theguardian.com	web.archive.org		Yep.
Angry Birds Star Wars II is the first game in the Angry Birds series to be compatible with Telepods, a line of toys-to-life figures by Hasbro, which can be "teleported" into the game via small QR codes by placing a figure on top of a plastic base, which has a magnifying glass and in turn goes on the device's front camera.
3	b	kotaku.com	web.archive.org		These first
5	c	eurogamer.net	web.archive.org		two corroborate it together.
7	e	toucharcade.com	web.archive.org		This corroborates most of it.
9	a	theverge.com	web.archive.org		As does this.
Release
It was released worldwide for Android, iOS, and Windows Phone 8 on September 19, 2013,
1	b	theguardian.com	web.archive.org		Yep, corroborates all of it.
4	d	uk.pcmag.com	web.archive.org		Says it will be released on September 19, at least, yes.
9	b	theverge.com	web.archive.org		Ditto.
11		uk.pcmag.com	web.archive.org		Corroborates all of it.
The game's release was accompanied by several pieces of merchandise, including a book published by National Geographic on September 17.
1	c	theguardian.com	web.archive.org		Mhm.
Reception
At the 2014 Kids' Choice Awards, Angry Birds Star Wars II received a nomination for Favorite App Game.
23		hollywoodreporter.com	web.archive.org		Straightforward enough.
Criticism in the review from the latter newspaper was limited to the lack of synchronicity of save data between the iPad and iPhone.
2	g	theguardian.com	web.archive.org		Yep.
As with its predecessor, Angry Birds Star Wars II was acclaimed for its incorporation of the Star Wars license.
17	c	gameinformer.com	web.archive.org		You could say that, yeah.
19	c	maclife.com	web.archive.org		"Well-produced", it says.
2	h	theguardian.com	web.archive.org		Yep.
Common highlights included the pod racing sequences and the Jar Jar Binks bird, the latter of whom IGN and Pocket Gamer considered the best playable character.
17	d	gameinformer.com	web.archive.org		Yep.
18	c	ign.com	web.archive.org		Well, they say "most fun" in the review, but I see how that could mean "best".
20	c	pocketgamer.co.uk	web.archive.org		Yeah.
21	b	commonsensemedia.org	web.archive.org		The review (if this is even it; it is incredibly short and I've never been able to masterfully navigate Common Sense Media despite its very deceptive name) reads, in full, "We've seen so many incarnations of Angry Birds at this point, it's hard to change anyone's mind: People like the game, or they don't. If you're in the like camp, you'll find plenty to enjoy here. The formula remains largely unchanged, but there are enough new twists -- such as young Anakin's pod-racer power or Jar Jar's tongue trapeze -- that it won't feel like a carbon copy. If you're not a fan, there's nothing here that will change your mind." There's no editorialization or opinion about pod racing or Jar Jar; they're simply described as "new twists"—which you could perhaps see as a "highlight", but I would say it isn't in line with the other reviews cited here.
Digital Spy and Pocket Gamer criticized Rovio for playing it safe.
22	b	digitalspy.com	web.archive.org		Yep.
20	d	pocketgamer.co.uk	web.archive.org		Very much indeed.
Conversely, Destructoid and Game Informer were disappointed, as they expected the pigs to function and act much more differently from the birds.
8	h	destructoid.com	web.archive.org		Yep.
17	e	gameinformer.com	web.archive.org		Like above, there is no editorialization as presented. The relevant sentence reads: "Don’t expect any variations to the play; they function exactly like the birds." You could argue that Mr. Reiner's tone and how he presents this info, flatly and with a tinge of disillusionment, constitutes "disappointment", but I'd argue this still fails because he didn't express any expectations about how he expected the pigs to function and act.
Most of the levels were reportedly beaten in just over an hour.
17	g	gameinformer.com	web.archive.org		Seems fair.
26	a	kotaku.com	web.archive.org		Yeah.
However, sources as Common Sense Media and EP Daily were still critical of this system, arguing the Telepods in particular turned Angry Birds Star Wars II into a massive toy commercial.
16	c	youtube.com	web.archive.org		This source corroborates all of the sentence.
18	e	ign.com	web.archive.org		Particularly critical of the system.
21	d	commonsensemedia.org	web.archive.org		The "Parents Need To Know" section has a sentence that reads: "In-app purchases of in-game currency run from $2 to $100, and players can buy real-world toys to unlock characters in the game through QR codes." This is the most relevant sentence I can find on this page, and like my critique above, there's the problem that it just is not "critical" of the system like you say it is. It says what is and presumably lets parents come to their own conclusions.

A thread I noticed in the Reception section that I think deserves to be unraveled is the fact that one part is corroborated by both or all sources cited, but there's another clause that only one citation corroborates but that you confer onto all of the sources cited. I think this deserves rectification, though I would like to hear your thoughts. nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

2d. plagiarism

Earwig says the highest percentage of similarity between this article and online sources is 10.7%, an exceptionally low number that can easily be explained by the use of proper nouns and WP:LIMITED (when there are a limited number of ways to phrase something) (e.g., "the rest of the Angry Birds franchise"). Great job. nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

3a. main topics

From a cursory Google search, I can confirm that this article does, in fact, address the main topics of the subject. If we look purely at the section titles, there are Gameplay and Reception sections, which are expected on every video game article, and a Release section (because there is not enough info online to formulate a developed Development section), so all is good here. nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

3b. focus

This article stays remarkably focused, though perhaps I should not be surprised since it is 805 words long and covers a relatively obscure Angry Birds game from 2013. I will say that naming all of the characters in the Gameplay section may be overkill, but that is definitely not covered in a GA review, so I will say this passes this criterion. nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

4. neutral

Words to watch are absent, and there is no editorialization beyond what is explicitly attributed to critics in the Reception section. All information is presented neutrally as far as my eye sees. nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

5. stable

I mean...yeah, it's stable. I don't see how it could be unstable. Seriously, who would be edit warring over an Angry Birds game from 2013? Nevertheless, the edit history is filled by the nominator of this GAN. nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

6. illustrated

This article is adequately illustrated for its size, and I say that with extreme confidence. There's a splash screen in the infobox and a screenshot of the gameplay, and I'd say that that's more than enough for this 805-word article.

6a. tagged media

Both images are rightly tagged as fair use, and non-free use rationales are adequate, if a bit lean, though that certainly is not a disqualifier. nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

6b. relevant media

These images are about as relevant as you can get with the subject matter at hand. The splash screen visually identifies what it is we are dealing with, and the gameplay image describes in visuals how this game is different from other Angry Birds games. nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Overall

@SleepyRedHair: Overall, this article is well-written, and I do not want to put a cloud over your work. However, I think there are a few problems with this article that need rectification before it can be promoted to GA status, but I do feel like these problems I have detailed enough that they fall within the purview of this GAN review. In other words, I will put this GAN on hold. That said, I would like to hear your thoughts on any of my points, and please don't hesitate to call me out on anything I got wrong (if anything). Thanksya! nub :) 06:49, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and in-depth review! I have made a major edit to address pretty much every problem and suggestion you brought up. I would like to note that I was not the one behind the Reception section as it current stands; HumanxAnthro rewrote the section prior to my recent major rewrite, so I decided to leave it mostly as is. Let me know if there's anything I can or should do. :3 Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 18:24, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Well, scratch my references to "you" and instead let them be "the article" haha. A cursory look at the edit you made seems to confirm that all the major points I brought up have been rectified, and I now feel comfortable in saying that this article passes GA status. Amazing job and I wish you luck on your future Wikipedia endeavors! Thanksya! nub :) 08:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that there was a second crossover between Angry Birds and Star Wars?

• Source: https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-apps/12936/angry-birds-star-wars-ii-hits-ios-android-windows-phone-8

• • ALT1: ... that there is an Angry Birds game based on the Star Wars prequel trilogy? Source: https://uk.pcmag.com/mobile-apps/12936/angry-birds-star-wars-ii-hits-ios-android-windows-phone-8
  • ALT2: ... that Angry Birds Star Wars II received a nomination at the 2014 Kids' Choice Awards? Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/kids-choice-awards-2014-winners-692089/
  • ALT3: ... that National Geographic published a book on Angry Birds Star Wars II? Source: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/appsblog/2013/aug/23/angry-birds-star-wars-2-iphone-android-windows-phone "National Geographic is publishing the official book of the game on 17 September."
  • ALT4: ... that IGN considers Jar Jar Binks to be the best character in Angry Birds Star Wars II? Source: https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/09/18/angry-birds-star-wars-ii-review "Incredibly, Jar Jar Binks is probably the most fun of the bunch."
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by SleepyRedHair (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Signed, SleepyRedHair. (talk - contribs) 17:55, 1 May 2026 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: ALT1 appears to be the most interesting one of these. Vestrian24Bio 06:10, 2 May 2026 (UTC)