Talk:Wipeout HD/GA1

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 06:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Freikorp (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Always impressed with your WipeOut articles. Looking forward to promoting this one once minor issues are addressed. Freikorp (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * "with many players complaining of extended loading times" - perhaps clarify that the advertisements were causing the loading times - I had to skip ahead to the relevant area to confirm this as I found the sentence confusing. How about "with many players complaining of the extended loading times it caused."
 * Clarified. JAG  UAR   17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "The race mode will only end after the destruction of the player's ship" - so just clarifying - as the destruction is inevitable the aim of the game here is just to survive as long as possible/see who can survive the longest?
 * Basically the aim of that game mode is to survive as long as possible, but I think you can actually finish it? I'm not sure as I've never seen anybody do it! Anyway, since the sources do not mention this, I've removed that part of the sentence. JAG  UAR   17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * "Eliminator mode is taken directly from Wipeout Pulse centres around players destroying other competitors for points and finishing laps" - I think this sentence is missing something grammatically.
 * Oops. Fixed. JAG  UAR   17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Trophy' is piped twice, to two different destinations, one of which appears to have since been moved.
 * Unlinked one. JAG  UAR   17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What is Double Fusion? A brief indication would be of interest.
 * It's an advertising company I think, but I did a cursory Google search and nothing appeared, which suggests that it's not worth having in the article. Removed. JAG  UAR   17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Some references use the article's name (IGN) whereas others use the base url (uk.ps3.ign.com).
 * Oops, I missed that one. Fixed. JAG  UAR   17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Checklinks finds a few things that could be fixed:
 * I don't see any problems there? Is it that it says GameSpot is forbidden? I'm not sure what that means as all the links work fine... JAG  UAR   17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I do recommend you archive your sources in order to help the article retain its promotion, but this isn't a GA criteria.
 * Archived all that were possible. I think I'd like to take this to FA one day. JAG  UAR   17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Citation to 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:
 * As indicated by article history and talk page.
 * 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:
 * I'm assuming it isn't an issue to have two fair use screenshots within the one game.
 * It shouldn't be, as I've seen a few FAs with at least three of them in. Super Mario Galaxy passed its FAC with four non-free images in, so I think it shouldn't be a problem as long as they help illustrate the topic—which they all do in this case JAG  UAR   17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thank you for the review, ! I really appreciate it. I've addressed all of the issues above. I think I might nominate this at FAC one day as it should be comprehensive enough. JAG  UAR   17:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Great work. Happy for this to pass now. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)