Talk:Daytona USA/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Crimsonfox (talk · contribs) 08:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

In progress, will update with comments  Cr im so nF ox  talk 08:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Crimsonfox
Overall it reads well and appears to cover everything, few nit picks on wording and some refs need fixing per below

Refs
 * #3 - No article date, name should be capitalised
 * #12 - Article title shouldn't have site name in
 * #18 - No article date (Optional: Not archived)
 * #20 - Needs all details
 * #21-23 - Remove site name from article name, no access date
 * #22-23 - No author, need to be distinguished from each other (Eg. Daytona USA - Review (PC))
 * #25-16 - Need formatting correctly
 * #46 - Name of the site is not the URL
 * #56 - No access date


 * All refs fixed, except for #20. Not sure what you're looking for here.   Red Phoenix  talk  16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Gameplay


 * The first sentence doesn't read very encyclopedia-like.
 * "introduced the possibility of linking " - Be more certain in your wording (Eg. "Up to eight cabinets can be linked to...")
 * "Sega originally planned to use actual car seats, but changed the seats before releasing the game" - Source needed


 * Fixed. The source on the seats is the same source as the whole paragraph.   Red Phoenix  talk  16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Development


 * The first three paragraphs have only once source at the end, which is fine, but can you confirm if they are for the whole paragraph?
 * First sentence doesn't read nicely
 * The comment in the image caption regarding the linking is unnecessary and is already mentioned in the Gameplay section


 * Fixed. Yes, the sources at the end are for the whole paragraph; the book is an excellent source that covers the development in more rigor than any other source I've seen.  Red Phoenix  talk  16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)


 * At the time of release, GE Aerospace was actually under Martin Marietta, so I don't quite follow why the older name is used here? Is it to accommodate the link to the Wikipedia article on GE Aerospace? F355fan  talk  16:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Reception & legacy


 * "(which are based strictly on sales achievements)" - I don't think this needs to be in brackets
 * Fixed.  Red Phoenix  talk  16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

 Cr im so nF ox  talk 11:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * other than ref #20, which I'm confused what you're looking for, all addressed.  Red Phoenix  talk  16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Great work! Ref #20 that links to this article doesn't have a proper title, author, date, website etc. it's just "Archived copy"  Cr im so nF ox  talk 17:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it now, haha. It doesn’t show up in VisualEditor because none of the refs in the review box do - #20 when VE is on was a Next Generation ref that was filled in.  Anyway, filled in.   Red Phoenix  talk  19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah that would explain it, all done! Congrats!  Cr im so nF ox  talk 08:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)