Talk:Wipeout (video game series)/GA1
GA Review[edit]
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 06:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
I'll take this one. Freikorp (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Lead
- I think you should avoid using brackets in prose unless you have to. "(formerly known as Psygnosis)" is an example of where you don't have to; the brackets could be replaced with just a comma.
- "The series is later revived," - do you think you've used the right tense for this?
- Gameplay
- Neither of the sources at the end of the sentence containing the bracketed text "(mainly Goa trance, uplifting trance and big beat)" mentions any of these genres.
- What's the purpose of the bracketed text "(or "pick-ups")". Its clear from the wikilink Power-up what is being referred to. If "Pick-up" is how they are referred to in-game I suggest you specify that.
- "In most single race modes, securing second or third place will reward the player with a silver and bronze medal, respectively." - this footnote is great, but I don't see why you don't just put it directly into the prose.
- "the ship and player in question will explode" - I think it would be more accurate to say "the ship in question will explode", as i'm sure rather than exploding themselves the player just suffers from the ship exploding :)
- Wipeout
- You don't have a single inline citation in the first paragraph
- Wipeout 3
- "The game also featured music from well-known British electronica artists, such as The Chemical Brothers, Orbital, and Propellerheads" - can you reword this to make it take into consideration that similar music/artists featured on the soundtrack of the first game. The sentence is very similar to the respective sentence for the first game. It doesn't take into consideration that the information there exists.
- Wipeout Fusion
- "newly renamed Sony Studio Liverpool, formerly known as Psygnosis until 2001" - I think this is worded badly, as if the reader hadn't heard of Psygnosus until this point.
- "the development team wanted to target Wipeout Fusion at an "older, savvier crowd" - can you give some indication of how they actually went about doing this?
- "focusing on the feedback left by fans on the previous game, and improving on aspects where Studio Liverpool had thought they had previously failed." - one example of feedback and/or perceived failure would be of interest.
- Wipeout HD
- This section does not mention that the controversial ads were later removed. Incidentally I only know this happened because I did the GAN for that article haha.
- Development
- "(formerly known as Psygnosis prior to 2001)" - this has already been clarified to the reader.
- "(of which a beta version of Wipeout appeared in)" - this has also already been clarified to the reader. Perhaps you could reword both to simply acknowledge this, For example, "After the beta version of Wipout appeared in the film Hackers, ..."
- "and a nightclub tour was initiated" - what does that mean?
- "in order to stress that downloadable content does not have to be focused on small games" - I've already read this in the games section. Consider removing it from one of the two sections.
- Reception
- Is it customary to simply leave a 'Metacritic' row blank if it didn't receive a rating? I know for example that if a song does not chart in a particular territory it is customary to place a dash in the row rather than leave it blank.
- "IGN ranked it as the 13th best PlayStation game of all time" - what year did this happen?
- "In addition, Wipeout 2097 also ranks as the third best PlayStation game of all time at GameRankings". Firstly, I'm not seeing this in the source provided. Secondly, is this information liable to change in the future? If so, perhaps clarify "as of 2017".
- I strongly doubt that it will change in the future, unless a major publication reviews an old game which seems unlikely. Or at least I've never seen that happen before! And I've added the correct link this time, but it turns out that it's the joint fourth highest ranked. JAGUAR 17:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Considering the games have been so well received, are you absolutely certain they have not been nominated for any other notable awards?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Just curious, why does the reference section have four columns? I don't have a problem with it, it's just very uncommon to see.
- Inconsistent reference formatting. For example ref 1 places the source in italics and wikilinked, while reference has no italics and no wikilink.
- As always I do strongly recommend you archive all your online sources, thought this is not a GA requirement.
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- Issues already pointed out in above comments.
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Not a huge deal, but I note from the template at the bottom that 3 physical Wiepout soundtracks were actually released. I can't see these mentioned anywhere in the article.
- I can't find any reliable sources for the Pure soundtrack as I remember trying to look for them when I was writing the Wipeout Pure article. If nothing can be found I might end up nominating it for deletion... it would be cool to bring all of the games' soundtracks to GA though JAGUAR 17:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
- Not a huge deal, but I note from the template at the bottom that 3 physical Wiepout soundtracks were actually released. I can't see these mentioned anywhere in the article.
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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:
- Additional concerns:
- What is "Wipeout Zone"? It's in the external links, though unlike all the others there's no indication of what it is.
- There appears to be a broken template at the bottom of the article.
- Copyvio detection shows one source goes above the 30% threshold: [1]
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
On hold. Well done on the article overall Jaguar. Looking forward to you addressing the concerns. Freikorp (talk) 08:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)