Wikipedia:Peer review/1080° Snowboarding/archive1

1080° Snowboarding
I basically moved this article from stub level to where it is now, but it still needs work. Things I'm worried about: should the character section be removed as game guide material; does there need to be more references in gameplay; and most importantly, I wrote this article on my own and I don't know if there's anything I'm missing or left out. Any comments would be accepted.--Clyde (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't played the game, so I can't tell you if you're missing anything important off-hand. I corrected a few ref problems, and removed Rumble Pak from the input section of the infobox, as it does not provide input. I see a few sentences where I can tell what you're trying to say, but it's not coming across. Here are some places for improvement from the Development section:


 * "1080° Snowboarding was programmed by two English programmers" - Is this correct? Exactly two persons programmed the entire game? Or were they merely the lead programmers?
 * According to the only interview I found and the credits I found, they are the only two programmers. And they are English I guess.
 * I don't believe they are literally the only two programmers. References to two programmers are, I believe, to indicate that they are joint leads. Writing it is it now, without the specific number reference, solves the problem.  Pagra shtak  05:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the adverb "mainly." I don't know what "Writing it is it now" means, but I hope the problem is solved.


 * "It was produced by the Nintendo game designer and producer Shigeru Miyamoto" - It was programmed by programmers, and produced by producers. This should be reworked to avoid the obvious.
 * I fixed it up and it looks like you worked some magic too.✅


 * "The two programmers had also done Wave Race 64" What is "done"? Programmed? ✅
 * "1080° used the Nintendo 64 engine" The Nintendo 64 is a console, not a game engine. (Incidentally, I changed the spelling to "Nintendo" here, assuming it was a typo. If there is in fact a "Ninentdo 64" engine, my apologies.)
 * The quote I found was "The 3D engine is, of course, the original N64 engine..." I was under the impression that meant there was an N64 engine. However, I've done some work with game engines, and never ran into it. Not sure what the move is...
 * I imagine they mean the Wave Race 64 engine, but can't say for sure.
 * I reworded it to not compromise the sentence, but not assert that there is a Nintendo 64 engine without a proper base.


 * "the characters are 'skinned' so there are no joints between the polygons. Also, all the character animations are interpolations between animation and inverse kinematics. So basically, when your character hits something in the game, his body is modified according to what you hit, from what direction, and at what speed." - this is too long for a direct quote. Say it in your own words (hopefully avoiding the second person in the process), and use the source as a reference.
 * I started, and will finish as time permits.
 * Finsihed, but it could probably use some more touch-ups.


 * "The game used real physics" - The game still does this if played today, so "uses", not "used". ✅
 * This isn't from the Development section, but I see the "Interactive Achievement Award winners" category, yet there is no mention of the award in the article. Why?
 * Never noticed it before. Again, I'll add more about it in as time permits (apparently it won the 1999 console sports Interactive achievment award).
 * ✅ adding it in.
 *  Pagra shtak  23:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments, and I'll get to all of them as soon as I can. I and replied and worked on a few things already (sorry for the whole time permits thing, but I became a bit busier than I intended; no worries though).--Clyde (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More replies.--Clyde (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I fully understand about being busy. I appreciate the response.  Pagra shtak  05:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * More replies. Clyde (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the help. Anything else?--Clyde (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 02:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks I'll check the prose problems it brought up when I get time.--Clyde (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)