Talk:Trials HD/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The prose needs polishing. Below are some example as guidance to find similar issues in the whole article.
Gameplay: Some areas describe the player's actions, but it is the player character that performs the actions. For example:
"the player rides a physics-based motorcycle" → "the player controls a rider on a physics-based motorcycle"

"the player can only move forwards and backwards" → "the rider can only move forwards and backwards"

Development: Some areas can be trimmed to be more concise and direct. For example:
"Doing so was seen by RedLynx as" → "RedLynx saw this as"

"level editor that players can use to make user-based content" → "level editor that allows players to make user-based content"

The first mention of "Trials HD Big Thrills Pack" uses "will" for a future tense, but later states that the content was released, requiring a present tense.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The numbers in the reception section need to be consistent per MOS:NUM. Basically there is "three hundred thousand", "1.3 million", and "368,000". For consistency's sake, I suggest using "0.30 million" "1.30 million", "0.36 million", and "0.09 million" to maintain scale. Don't forgot about a non-breaking space between the number and word.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
What makes the following sources reliable?
funflashgames.com
Replaced with a primary source. Developer's official website shows a list of games which verify its roots. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

console-arcade.com
Removed and trimmed. Not entirely necessary to know when they announced it I guess. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal but the 1UP.com link redirects to an updated url. It would be best to use the new address in the ref.
C. No original research:
The statement about based on the flash games is not it the reference given. A reasonable conclusion, but best to simply state that the developer created other games in flash prior to this game.
Replaced per the funflashgames.com comment above. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Reception section, attribute the leaderboard comment to the author.
Fixed. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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:
The FUR for File:TrialsHDscreenshot.png and File:TrialsHD levelEditor.png are rather sparse. The descriptions and purpose of uses should be expanded.
Expanded the purposes for both of these. --Teancum (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would expand the description as well. Basically assume that a reader may click on the image for information. So something at least as descriptive as a caption should be there. The beauty is that you're not as restricted on space like you would be in an article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Done. --Teancum (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold pending article revisions

I did an initial sweep, and will finish the review hopefully tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Finished my review. The article is in good shape. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll pass the article. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Finished everything but what's in point 2. Still working on that. --Teancum (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finished updating the article. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second look

GA review – see WP:WIAGA 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:
Not an issue, but I recommend that you add Alt text to the images.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
My concerns have been addressed and I think the article meets the criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]