Talk:Wave Race 64/GA1

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

Reviewer: TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) 22:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

My apologies for the confusion possibly caused by the review being restarted, however, it was brought to my attention here that the length of the reviews was a concern. Due to this, I am restarting the review.

Overall I do not see any major issues with the article, however, I noticed that the article could possibly do with some more citations?


 * "Each time a buoy is correctly passed, a power arrow in the game's HUD will light, allowing the player's Jet Ski to gain speed." - could possibly use a citation closer to it?
 * Added citation


 * "Victor Lucas highlighted the game's distinct environments, saying that each course offers players something to get excited about." - source?
 * Added citation


 * "Unlike the Nintendo 64 version, the Virtual Console release does not feature Kawasaki banners due to expired licensing deals. " - while that definitely makes sense, it is unsourced
 * Added citation


 * The legacy section is a bit short in comparison to the others, can it be expanded slightly? If not, I am willing to accept that.
 * Although the game is a classic, there really isn't much more info about its legacy. In any case, I added an IGN quote from their "top lists" to flesh it out a bit more. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * have you considered using quote for that as it is multi-line? If not, that is fine.--TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I'm not a big fan of using it as I always felt it takes things out of context a bit. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I feel that small things like that just come down to personal preference. As mentioned below, this review has been passed. Have you considered DYK? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I think I'll pass for now. Thanks --Niwi3 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

That's it, sorry for any confusion caused by this, hopefully we can get this straightened out quickly. In the meantime, I am placing this nomination while these concerns are addressed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem at all, and thank you for taking the time to review it again. I think I have addressed all the issues you listed above. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being understanding, I think we are done here and you have indeed addressed the concerns raised. Well done! I shall repromoting this now. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)