Talk:G-Police/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

When I read (and copyedited) this article, it struck me that this game's plot is strikingly very similar to Microcosm, another game by Psygnosis developed for PC, Amiga, and Sega Mega-CD a few years before G-Police.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Some issues:

   • while working for the titular G-Police. → I don't know about the usage of the word "titular" something else to replace, possibly?

   • What's wrong with it? Maybe it's a bit redundant... the reader can probably guess we're talking about the same G-Police mentioned in the game's title. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Good. I think I can see how that word is being used in the context. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Early game levels see Slater combating criminal gangs. Corporate involvement (specifically, "Krakov" corporation) is suspected due to the sophisticated nature of the gangs’ weaponry; however Krakov’s president is the subject of an assassination attempt by the gangs, also depicted in playable missions. → Needs a rewrite. Sentence does not flow very well. I suggest split into two sentences and improvement on the cohesion.

   • Rewritten. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Good. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   • The game depicts the aftermath of the conflict between the G-Police and Nanosoft, involving initial battles with gangs attempting to take advantage of the colony's instability, before another war arises between the G-Police and a power hungry leader of Earth's forces (sent to assist the G-Police against the gangs). → Trying to say too much in this one sentence. Split into two sentences to clarify.

   • Rewritten. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Good. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   • There is quite a bit of passive voice throughout the article (change to active voice if possible):

   • The G-Police commander Horton is assassinated by Slater's traitorous wingman Ricardo, also to this end.
   • Cheung claimed that the decision to "concentrate on the people inside the machines" was informed by his belief that the game’s plot, setting and characters set G-Police apart from other shooters of the day.
   • Though Edge disagreed regarding the buildings' detail, praising them, the magazine agreed that the PlayStation's capabilities were stretched too far, though it was less harsh, calling the draw distance the "only fly in the ointment"; the magazine noted that these problems were alleviated somewhat in the PC version.
   • The missions were also derided as repetitive.
   • While the graphics were highly praised in addition to plot and sound, the reviewer claimed serious flaws in the gameplay, particularly the unintuitive controls and "downright ludicrous" level of difficulty.
   • The sequel to the game is G-Police: Weapons of Justice,...
   • In 2001, a rumoured sequel for the PlayStation 2 was reported.
   • In 2007, G-Police was made available for download on PlayStation 3.

   • I think the passive voice is ok there... For the sentences about Horton and the sequels I think it's preferable. It's probably more important that Horton is killed than Ricardo being a traitor. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   • OK. I corrected some instances of passive voice listed above and left a few as it is debatable if active voice can be accomplished. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   • The Development section seems all over the place and not exactly going from one point to another. Try and reword that section so that you're either going from one reviewer to another or from one aspect (for example, graphics to gameplay to difficulty) to another.

   • Rearranged it by publication. It's because I wrote half of it about a year ago and tacked the rest on recently. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Very good. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Name who did the reviews (except if it's something like "IGN Staff", then you have to do something different). A good rule of thumb with reviews is to write something like "John Doe from IGN said that...". This pins the material more on the reviewer than on the site itself, and it utilizes active voice.

   • Done. It's particularly helpful with the GameSpot sources... I left IGN, Edge and Next Gen as the reviews are anonymous, in which case we're relying on the reputation of the publication itself anyway. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Good. I completely understand not being able to with the IGN, Edge, or Next Gen reviews. MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Some other extra comments when I copyedited that I should mention (I have already corrected them, but for future reference):

   • Usage of commas in a list: always place a comma before the conjunction. For example: foo1, foo2, and foo3 taste great.

   • Only in North America ;) Putting the comma before the conjunction in a list is Oxford style, which is actually unconventional in British English. I see I decided to use US dates in the citations, not sure why I did that... bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Just keep it consistent. You can leave out the commas at the end and change the dates to the common International style, or you can change about everything else. It might be OK to leave the commas out and just change the dates to save work. There are a lot of words using British English in the article, so the rest of the grammar/syntax should reflect that. MuZemike 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

   • I changed the date formatting. In any case I think the article should use British English as it was a UK developer/publisher. bridies (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Normally, websites are not italicized, even though nearly all print sources are.

   B. MoS compliance:

   While I wouldn't fail on MoS as far as lack of usage of {{citation}} templates is concerned (as long as everything is consistent and within WP:CITE), I strongly recommend using citation templates, as it does make life easier for referencing. Also, citation templates are generally required for Featured Article consideration.

   • Actually, WP:CITE states: "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged." bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

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:

   Very good coverage.

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   A couple of reversions a couple of weeks ago, but nothing close to what I would consider recent edit-warring, which normally quick-fails a GA.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   File:G-Police buildings.png and File:Gpolice cockpit.jpg both need better fair-use rationales, particularly the "Purpose of use" and "Replaceable" sections. For the "Replaceable" portion, the normal acceptable statement for nonfree VG screenshots is No free equivalent of this screenshot exists. Other non-free screenshots can be easily provided. For "Purpose of use", spell out why the images are necessary in the article.

   • Expanded the rationales. bridies (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

   • Good. MuZemike 01:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I have placed the GA review on hold pending the necessary corrections as mentioned above. MuZemike 20:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

   It passes GA, now. One more thing to remember: if you are referencing another article like in the Sequel section, please place a {{main}} template on top of that section to provide a link to that full (well, hopefully full) article. Anyways, good job! MuZemike 00:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)