Talk:Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing/GA1

GA nom
There's a lack of images and is shorter than what I'd expect of a GA. Therefore, I failed. Will (Glaciers melting in the dead of night) 17:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the article's editors has requested another look following the GA Review above. In looking at the article, I agree with Sceptre's basic premise ("short article"-not broad in coverage) but will give a little more detail and point out other issues. I always like to compare format and styling to similar articles and in this case I referenced the game articles of Doom, 3D Monster Maze and Perfect Dark. In reviewing the article according to the Good Article Criteria, this is how the article stacks up. 1. It is well written. - Weak Pass
 * I gave it a weak pass because there is no glaring violations of WP:MOS however there are some awkard sentences that don't quite flow. I would take another look at them. Like...
 * "The player can, then, simply guide their truck through the checkpoints and to the finish at their leisure in order to achieve victory."
 * "This introduced an inconsistency between the track design a player believed to have selected and the one actually used."

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Weak Pass
 * Overall the article strives to be well referenced with sources from reputable gaming magazines that pass WP:RS. It is a weak pass because there some minor OR concerns that need to be addressed. Like...
 * "Put simply, Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing largely ignores the laws of physics."
 * "Despite all these issues, Big Rigs managed to be a commercial success. Though no known sales figures exist, the game was reportedly made entirely on a $15,000 budget. At USD $5 per game, Stellar Stone would have only needed to sell 3,000 copies to break even. According to GameSpot, Big Rigs sold several times that amount." (OR synthesis. You are assuming it is a success without a reliable source publishing it as so. It is even pointed out that you really can't know because there is no known sales figure)

3. It is broad in its coverage. - Needs Improvement 4. It follows the neutral point of view policy - Needs Improvement
 * A significant area of coverage that is missing is development. In reading this article, a persistent thought I had was whether or not the developers intended for the game to be this bad.
 * While I understand that this is a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, REALLY bad game, it doesn't have to be so blatantly and repeatedly asserted that it is. It is not the absence of positive reviews that makes this article fail NPOV it is the overbearing nature of its view that this game is so bad, when the article should be just stating the bare facts and letting the reader come to that conclusion. As WP:NPOV notes "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." The whole tone of this article presents itself as in opposition to the subject. Some examples...(emphasis mine)
 * "In addition, no proper racing occurs in Big Rigs, as the "computer-controlled" opponent vehicle has no AI and never actually moves from the starting position."
 * "There are no true obstacles whatsoever for the player to negotiate in Big Rigs"
 * "Upon completion of the "race," (scare quotes) "
 * ";Big Rigs was subject to an overwhelming number of negative reviews."
 * "and was actually described by Morgan Webb as "the worst game ever made."

5. It is stable - Pass 6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Pass I hope this clarifies some of the issues the previous reviewer failed the article for. If you have any other questions don't hesitate to contact me. Agne 00:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is a bit of a vandal target but the editors on this article seem to be pretty active in maintaining the page's integrity. The main aspects of the article appear to be fairly stable.
 * For an article with this subject matter, the cover shot will suffice for the purpose of GA evaluation. For further consideration, a screen shot from the game (Maybe the famous YOU'RE WINNER) would be a plus to have.


 * While I don't agree with your opinion of the game in #4 (It's really really really really really really really good in my opinion), I must thank you for pointing out that the article really bashes the game. That was my main problem, and im sorry that my argument deteriorated into a flame war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.7 (talk • contribs)

I see that the article has been renominated for GA. While I will let another reviewer make the final decision, I strongly encourage the editors to consider incorporating details about the Game's development into the article. There is very little said in the article about development at all and I do believe that is a significant component to the GA requirement of being Broad in Coverage. Agne 08:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How would they do that? There really isnt any info on development —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.116.197 (talk • contribs)


 * I've looked for information on the development online, and there is virtually none. While it does seem like a rushed version of MRC:S! from viewing the game files (there even seem to be pieces of it still included on the Big Rigs CD), this isn't hosted at a reliable source anywhere.  There's really nothing factual or proven that can be put into the article. -- Cirus Talk/Contribs 02:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Concured with Circus206 - there simply isn't anything else to write. It's a low-budget, low-profile game that caught on and became a cult classic due to Navarro's hilarious video review. Other than that, and the numerous other reviews, there isn't much else to latch onto. Hbdragon88 03:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In all fairness, the game had fans before Navarro's review.


 * It's been a long time since it was rated, can it pass now?--Megaman en m (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The situation has not changed, we still don't have any development information on this game.  Until that changes this article will remain B-class. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)