Talk:Wipeout (video game)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 05:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be offline and on the road over the next week. I'll review this then. czar  05:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    lede quotes, Reception paraphrase needs fixing
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    On hold for a week. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend

  • Is there a citation for any site using the stylization wipE'out"?
  • "It is the first game in the Wipeout series set in the year 2052." Is the Wipeout series set in 2052 or is it the first game, set in 2052?
  • A few more comma issues in the lede
  • Watch your "comma gerunds" (the "racing league, piloting one", etc.)
  • First ¶ of Gameplay is unsourced
  • ATI3DCIF section is unsourced, though it's also gamecruft unless another source cares to explain why its tech specs are notable
  • Same for this one, needs expansion in Reception badly
  • Also the sources for the last two paragraphs of Dev + release do not look good
  • remove soundtrack tracklisting as not independently notable per WPVG consensus
  • incorrect use of "eponymous", I believe
  • link port
  • per overlinking rules, the OST should only be linked once in the body outside the lede
  • Gameplay caption doesn't explain what's happening
  • Gameplay doesn't go into depth as to differences between teams and ships or how races are won or scored, how boost works, you know, basic stuff
  • "Wipeout was later ported" is a runon
  • Do you have any sources on the development's timespan?
  • Is the tech specs stuff necessary? Seems really out of place as minutiae
  • Music is small enough that it could fit into the dev section
  • Doesn't it make more sense to start the Reception with Metacritic than IGN?
  • 'saying that despite the game's "reliance on track-based power-ups" would "limit Wipeout’s lifespan"' what?
  • Do any of the mags go into greater detail?
  • Why isn't EGM in the review box?
  • Reception is lacking broadness—I can't tell what their common concerns and praise was
  • Make sure the contents of the infobox are sourced within the article (esp. release dates)
  • Might want to update the cover art FUR and use a template for the screenshot's file page
  • Lede should do a better job of summarizing overall coverage rather than pulling their quotes out of context. Also those quotes would need immediate citations if left in the lede
  • Did it win any awards?
  • Discogs is an unreliable source—it can't be used

czar  23:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Czar! I currently have five GANs open at once so I'll address this one after PlayStation and Jumping Flash! 2 (should be a couple of days). I know you're busy too so it won't be a problem. By the way, I don't know how to address your first concern about the stylisation of 'wipEout' as the title screen, logo(s), packaging and everything else in the game uses that style but for the sake of Wikipedia this page uses "Wipeout" instead. I'll try to find some sources but they are scarce. Jaguar 14:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. I understand re: the stylization, but I'd say that it's not worth mentioning if none of the sources mention it either, especially as it's so weird. Also readers can get the impression of the stylization from the box art, for what it's worth czar  14:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm attending to this review now, sorry for the wait as I couldn't edit yesterday as I got abused at by an old man. I should have this one done by the end of the day! Jaguar 15:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of the review now. I'll do the references last, but what do you think of the development section now? Do you think I should remove the jargon-y two final paragraphs as I can't find any reliable sourcing for them? Jaguar 16:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The last paragraph with the tech specs can likely be tossed. The rest needs to be copyedited and tightened (fewer paragraphs). I'd keep the penultimate paragraph that covers the launch and try to source it. Also you'll need to check every source you're using for facts against the WP:VG/RS list. Some of the sources don't look reliable. Hope the old man situation wasn't too abusive czar  00:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I have now addressed everything except the reception section - which I will copy edit and expand now. I have removed all unreliable references (although Discogs remain in the External Links), and have copy edited the development section. I've almost finished, thank you for your patience! And the old colonel, I couldn't understand anything he said (too stereotypical maybe)!
As far as I know this Wipeout did not win any awards despite it being well received, however, the sole music provider CoLD SToRAGE won a few awards during the release. I'm not sure if this is relevant... Jaguar 21:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Czar: I think I have addressed all of the issues raised in the GAN. I have copy edited the article, removed all unreliable references and have replaced them. As for the development section, I used all of the information I could find but it's surprising enough to find that this Wipeout didn't receive many reviews compared to the others. Anyway, let me know what you think now? Jaguar 13:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jaguar, I see that it's been edited, but I see a lot left unaddressed. Like the infobox people are unsourced (not cited or mentioned in prose), the stylization is unsourced. I'm also finding things like "with CoLD SToRAGE being the most notable omission given his prevalence" which is original research if not actually said by the source cited. We shouldn't be making these claims ourselves—only citing what reliable sources say about a topic. There are also a number of grammatical errors: "The game positively received from critics upon release; who praised the game for its originality and its vast "unique techno soundtrack" however was criticised for its in-game physics" with run-on sentences. The added poster is too high res and needs to be reduced and its FUR does not adequately cover the NFCC needed for its inclusion. And the source used to make claims about Sara Cox, TheAverageGamer has no editorial policy and does not appear reliable. It needs to be taken to WP:VG/RS for discussion if you think it has other merits. And what about the added "Wipeout gained a significant amount of controversy upon its initial release in the United Kingdom." Bold claim! Needs citation. This is all to say that unfortunately the article still appears to have too many lingering issues to pass muster. I'll leave it open a few more days in case clarification would be useful, but I would recommend nominating it again at a later time (similar to what I'm saying on all the Wipeout articles) after there has been some time to fact-check and copyedit with input from other editors. (Also re: the lack of reviews—they exist, they're just in print sources. Magazines were much bigger in 1995 and, in fact, I remember reading reviews of this game. Try the main PlayStation and PC gaming mags.) czar  20:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Failed good article nominee Closing, as discussed czar  16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)