Talk:Speed Dreams

Speed Dreams was nominated as a Video games good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 17, 2012). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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

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

Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Is it reasonably well written?

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article in an appropriate way according to the article size. Given the size of the article the lead is incredibly short
layout sections that are short should be merged to their parent, and short paragraphs should also be merged. There are several instances where there are one-paragraph sections and very short paragraphs

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

While it is well sourced, there is no indication that most of these sources pass reliable sources guidelines. Many a primary sources which are directly related to the project, and thus cannot be used to establish facts and notability, only to support it. Several more third-party reliable sources are needed.

Is it broad in its coverage?

The article provides excessive details per WP:GAMETRIVIA. Please see Halo 3 for a good example on what content is appropriate and what is too excessive in detail.

Is it neutral?

It seems to largely promote the game. The amount of detail, the lack of any real criticism in the Reception section, etc.
For that matter, I couldn't find any reliable media outlets in the Reception games that had reviewed the game, and only one that is questionably reliable

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

The amount of images given seems excessive. Again, the detail feels far too complex. Between the text and images it reads more like a technical document.
Have these images been checked by an admin on Commons? I couldn't find any confirmation that the proper permissions had been given to make them freely available.

Unfortunately given the number of issues I can't pass this as a good article.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Speed Dreams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.idiap.ch/~dimitrak/torcs/simuv3.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://torcs.free.fr/manual/track.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]