Talk:Wipeout 2097/GA1

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 16:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

On the go—will likely be ready next week midweek czar ♔   16:25, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * lede will need to be expanded after article expansion
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * some direct quotes need citations (WP:MINREF)
 * C. No original research:
 * gameplay currently unsourced
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * almost all parts need expansion, sourcing
 * 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week, though, again, it doesn't quite look like it's there yet. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week, though, again, it doesn't quite look like it's there yet. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week, though, again, it doesn't quite look like it's there yet. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend

czar ♔   23:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of the issues from my other recent GAN reviews hold here too (unsourced Gameplay, small Development, merge-able Music, small Reception, though the latter is a bit better)
 * source for "stylized" version or for "XL"?
 * first half of the lede is good, but I'm not sure what's up with the jargon-y controller stuff. Why is that important to the lede? Isn't self-evident.
 * Did it win any awards?
 * Is there really nothing on the actual development of the game?
 * gameplay sections must be sourced
 * why are some words capitalized? are they proper nouns?
 * game title needs to be italicized
 * Visual Attack Formation doesn't appear to be reliable. Run past WP:VG/RS?
 * Since these are some elementary errors and you're familiar with the GAN process, it's kind of frustrating to have to write about them in a GAN review. Could you please address these in advance next time so we don't waste time? As it stands, this article's issues are clear enough for it not to pass muster. It's going to need a whole lot more work to pass, likely more than it can get in a week if you're going for offline sources too
 * Along with sourcing the Gameplay, make sure it actually covers the goals and controls first and leaves subjective commentary about how it took a while to acclimate for the Reception section
 * "Wipeout 2097 moved the franchise forward" non-neutral
 * Gamefaqs is not a reliable source, must be removed
 * Use the Google search in WP:VG/RS to find reliable, vetted sources, and...
 * be sure to use offline (magazine) sources in the Reception—this is a game from 1996 and the article will be missing in breadth without it
 * could use a screenshot of gameplay
 * cover could use a fair use template
 * Image needs to be reduced in size (length times width less than 100,000 pixels)
 * Why 2097 vs XL? Should be in dev section
 * How long was development
 * Infobox video game uses media only where the distribution is ambiguous, which it isn't in this case
 * two-player modes should be in the prose, not the infobox—the infobox is for quick overviews, and on this note...
 * Make sure the contents of the infobox are sourced within the article (esp. release dates)
 * There's virtually nothing on the development, why they made the decisions, who the team/staff was, their budgeting, their goals, their problems, anything
 * Like the other articles, I think Music can be merged into development, and I don't see the coverage for the 2097 soundtrack where it would warrant its own article nevertheless section.
 * soundtrack tracklisting should be removed as not independently notable per WPVG consensus
 * again, discogs not a reliable source
 * "new storage space of the time" at the time?
 * XL on its own should still be italicized
 * full quotes need to be paraphrased unless necessary to leave whole (not the case in Reception)
 * little need to repeat scores in the prose if they're in the review box
 * Reception is insufficiently broad, as I can't tell what the reviews thought of the game as a whole apart from the few pull quotes. What did they like or dislike as a whole?
 * only use two digits of precision with GameRankings, per Template:Video game reviews/doc

Don't worry, I'll get to this either tonight or tomorrow. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 17:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Closing, as discussed czar ♔   16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)