Talk:Trials HD/GA1

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

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 talk 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * The prose needs polishing. Below are some example as guidance to find similar issues in the whole article.
 * Gameplay: Some areas describe the player's actions, but it is the player character that performs the actions. For example:
 * "the player rides a physics-based motorcycle" → "the player controls a rider on a physics-based motorcycle"
 * "the player can only move forwards and backwards" → "the rider can only move forwards and backwards"
 * Development: Some areas can be trimmed to be more concise and direct. For example:
 * "Doing so was seen by RedLynx as" → "RedLynx saw this as"
 * "level editor that players can use to make user-based content" → "level editor that allows players to make user-based content"
 * The first mention of "Trials HD Big Thrills Pack" uses "will" for a future tense, but later states that the content was released, requiring a present tense.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * The numbers in the reception section need to be consistent per MOS:NUM. Basically there is "three hundred thousand", "1.3 million", and "368,000". For consistency's sake, I suggest using "0.30 million" "1.30 million", "0.36 million", and "0.09 million" to maintain scale. Don't forgot about a non-breaking space between the number and word.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * What makes the following sources reliable?
 * funflashgames.com
 * Replaced with a primary source. Developer's official website shows a list of games which verify its roots. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * console-arcade.com
 * Removed and trimmed. Not entirely necessary to know when they announced it I guess. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a big deal but the 1UP.com link redirects to an updated url. It would be best to use the new address in the ref.
 * C. No original research:
 * The statement about based on the flash games is not it the reference given. A reasonable conclusion, but best to simply state that the developer created other games in flash prior to this game.
 * Replaced per the funflashgames.com comment above. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In the Reception section, attribute the leaderboard comment to the author.
 * Fixed. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Expanded the purposes for both of these. --Teancum (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would expand the description as well. Basically assume that a reader may click on the image for information. So something at least as descriptive as a caption should be there. The beauty is that you're not as restricted on space like you would be in an article. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Done. --Teancum (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold pending article revisions
 * On hold pending article revisions

I did an initial sweep, and will finish the review hopefully tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Finished my review. The article is in good shape. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll pass the article. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Finished everything but what's in point 2. Still working on that. --Teancum (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Finished updating the article. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Second look
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail: