Talk:Power Drive Rally

Power Drive Rally has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 23, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Purple Francis (6 participants)
Gilman Louie (2 participants)
Yoshimitsu (2 participants)
Dr. Wily (8 participants)
First Internet Backgammon Server (3 participants)
Emote (2 participants)
Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Preston Arsement (6 participants; relisted)
Jackpot World (3 participants; relisted)
Melee (game terminology) (7 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

GA Review

Passed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Power Drive Rally/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 05:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this one on as discussed earlier. Thanks for your patience! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please find some comments below. Feel free to cross them out as you go, there's not that much. I will do a spot check on some of the sources when I can to wrap up the GAN assessment when I can. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:MOS? Y Pretty much by the book.

Is the article generally well-written? Y The quality of writing is great and above-average for GANs. I appreciate the concision. No issues from what I can see.

Is the article broad enough in its coverage? Y Absolutely. The article has a significant coverage of review sources and a sizable amount of sourcing on the development and release for the game.

Do the sources cited verify the text in the article? ? TBC. Some articles are WP:OFFLINE so I will need to do some digging.

Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? Y Stock-standard non-free use templates are used correctly for images. Best practice is to explain why the image is needed for illustration, but as a general gameplay screenshot this is unlikely to be needed.

Done -- I included two missing paragraphs into the summary infobox of the gameplay image file. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination? Yes, some include:

For the headline, things could be cleared up a little: Hall's composition of Millennium Soldier seems trivial and not necessary information for the headline. Given VideoGames is not a notable industry accolade, it is probably not significant enough to include in the headline.

Done -- I removed the two paragraphs from the headline section. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the reviews, please note: best practice as per WP:VG/REC really is to try and distil the paragraphs by thematic topics rather than as a list of summarised reviews: i.e. gameplay, graphics, sound, and so on. This is quite prescriptive and the section is well-written as-is so I'm not sure this is necessary for the GAN, but something to note for future or FAC. I also note that for older games there is much more to uniquely write about in discrete categories.

Okay, i'll try keeping that advice for future GAs from my part. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't much else. This is very well-written. Great work.

@Vrxces: I got around and did changes in regards to your inquiries. Is there anything else that needs to be changed? Let me know! Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll check the citations shortly when I can and flag any issues, but otherwise I don't see anything that should really be an obstruction to the GAN. Appreciate your patience - keep you posted. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces:Hey there! Sorry for bothering you right now but do you plan to review the sources in the PDR article this weekend? Just curious. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I can do that this afternoon. Thanks again for your patience - been a wild week. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces:No problem! My week has been equally crazy as with my job X( Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mood. Had to move house so it's been an interesting time! Anyway I should have a few hours free a little later this afternoon to finalise the GAN. Otherwise I recall that article being solid as is so shouldn't take long. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Quick last question: How do you know the blog transcription of the Laskey article is for the specifically referenced issue of Atari World? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces:I had a hunch that the transcripted review (1) of the game by Iain Laskey on his personal website was published somewhere, as i had seen his name previously when reading the available ST Format magazine issues online. Then it came to my mind that Atari World did review Jaguar games so i decided to look up if it came from there and sure enough, this issue of Atari World (2) is where that review came from. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic. That's all from me. Great work on this article! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.