Talk:Micro Machines 2: Turbo Tournament/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 11:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I still have this for the Mega Drive! JAG UAR   11:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend splitting the lead into three paragraphs, starting with "Reception was positive..."
 * Done. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "new tracks, and a new soundtrack" - race tracks, as I thought "tracks" meant "music tracks" for a second there
 * Done. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "In challenge," - In challenge mode
 * Done. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Head-to-head is a game with one opponent involving achieving enough distance" - Head-to-head is a game which involves one opponent achieving enough distance
 * Done. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "If all the light are one colour" - plural needed? I'm not sure what this means
 * Done, and clarified (I think?). Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "In League" - add "mode" at the end
 * Done. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * " David and Richard Darling came up with the idea of the J-Cart. David also came up with the idea" - repetition of "came up with the idea"
 * Is "thought of" good enough? Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "Most of the background graphics were produced by Mark Neesam, who was using an Amiga 500" - remove "who was"
 * Done. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "He stated that some graphics were hard, despite having access to the originals, and stated that additional colours" - repetition of "stated" in one sentence. Maybe replace the second "stated" with "elaborated"
 * I used "believed" instead" as I'm not sure if it's an elaboration. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "It was insisted that it was made like the original" - insisted by whom?
 * The exact quote in the source (said by David Darling) is "We kept asking for improvements and working on it until it was like the original". I'm not sure exactly who "We" is referring to and I might have (or might not have. I'm not sure.) misinterpreted the source. I have reworded it to "It was worked on until it was similar to the original", and tried to avoid close paraphrasing. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * "After over a quarter of a million sales" - try quarter of a million copies sold
 * Done. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)


 * No dead links

This article is generally well written, solid and comprehensive. Once all of the above are dealt with I'll pass this. Just curious, I wonder why the Sega Saturn Magazine reviewed this? I loved this game when I was a kid. JAG UAR   17:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I've dealt with all the issues. Technically, Sega Saturn Magazine didn't review Micro Machines 2: they reviewed the updated Mega Drive version, but still, I don't know why they did. Is the reception section okay? I've tried to reword most of the "Reviewer A said this. Reviewer B said that"s. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for addressing them! The reception section is looking great. I personally would only focus more on reworking the "A and B said this" problem for FAs, but it's still a new idea. Anyway, with all of those issues addressed, this is good to go as it meets the criteria. Well done! It is a bit strange that the Sega Saturn Magazine reviewed a Mega Drive game...  JAG  UAR   22:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)