Talk:Tearaway Unfolded

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (7 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (3 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Pre-review

Even if this article is primarily about the remake, the article needs to stand on its own. Right now, it assumes that the reader knows the previous game's basic gameplay, which is a big assumption. It should explain the whole game as if it were a standalone concept (which is the idea of having a standalone article).
I would recommend something more syncretic for the Reception section. That X said Y and gave a score of Z tells us relatively little. What was the general sentiment about the game and how can you use the reviewers' voices to express it?

czar 22:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd just say something. I have worked on the article but I won't be pushing for it to be classified as a good article. I think it's a C class. (General thoughts about it: The plot section is more like a setting or premise subsection, the gameplay section (like Czar said) lacks certain basic details and thus gives off the impression that the article assumes the player knows everything about the gameplay, the reception section's flow is non-existent (common problem), and the release and development sections should be expanded. Other things I see are small and mentioning anything more right now would be unnecessary. Overall though, I would describe it as being "not bad".) I don't 'work' in the good article department; by that I mean I don't care what an article is rated as and I'm not going to go out of my way to work on one specific article so it has a logo in the corner. I just edit. I very well might chip in but I'm not interested in the whole good article review process. —DangerousJXD (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, removed the good article nomination. Could be vastly improved.Spilia4 (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]