Talk:Wipeout 64/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 12:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
heavy jargon use, lack of clarity in Gameplay

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'll get to this latest by this weekend czar ♔ 12:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay is written for an audience familiar with the game and it needs to be geared towards a newcomer (think me)
The very first sentence: "Wipeout 64 provides exactly the same weapons as Wipeout 2097" That's a big claim. I check the source, which says: "In addition, Wipeout 64 ups the ante with a wide selection of in-game weapons ... and newly added power weapons unique to each vehicle." That doesn't sound like the same. Citation needed
Tons of jargon in this first paragraph. Is it important that I know what a Plasma Bolt or Super Weapon is? Probably not. I want to know that vehicles go around tracks (what kinds of tracks and vehicles, briefly?), that they shoot missiles (perhaps homing? probably doesn't matter what "element" they are), and that they cloak and have something called energy drain (what the hell is energy and how is it drained?) This section needs to be written for "beginner's mind" and needs to mind its source cited
I only need to know that the weapon is called the "Cyclone" if it's going to be referenced later (if it's important). I probably don't need to know the game's names, just the major functions
The very first sentence of Development runs-on
That the load times are three to four seconds is (1) not in the source cited, (2) original research (if it's not in the source), and (3) probably not even necessary to include, as video game trivia
It would be nice to have more on Development—the actual process—but I'm assuming good faith that you looked. Perhaps ask WT:VG for some help sourcing the development across the series, if you're interested in expanding it
Like the other articles, a track listing likely isn't appropriate here
Music has several uncited sentences
"Metacritic gave the game a score of 84/101 - with an accompanying sense of surprise that Nintendo's hardware could present such high quality graphics and sound." What? I thought Metacritic gives aggregate reviews and nothing original? Also the score is out of 101? Also the first link is dead?
Up to this point, with factual errors as large as I've pointed out without digging too deep, I don't think this can pass GA any time soon without a rewrite. I'd also recommend to have the articles checked line-by-line for copy (copyediting) as well as facts (checking to make sure stuff's in the source cited as well as that the source is not a dead link)
There is excessive quoting in the Reception. Quoting is only used sparingly in articles—only where it is vital to put it in the author's own words. Many of these quotes can be easily paraphrased without losing any of their effect. Also "sound-affects" → sound effects
"Most reviews compare the game with F-Zero X which came out a month earlier, with the general feeling that while Nintendo's own futuristic racer offers more tracks and racing craft, Wipeout 64 has better track design and atmosphere." There are a number of grammar issues in this section, and for this sentence in particular—what a bold claim! I want to know more about this! But I can't because it isn't cited. Anything that a reader might find to be a bold claim should have direct citations so the reader can verify the claim. That's the basis of the citation policy
There are also a bunch of easy typos: "are hideous";.", "Wipeiout 64", etc.
Outside GAN scope: when using dashes to make parentheticals, use either the spaced en dash or the unspaced em dash (the MOS has more on this), GameRankings should only use two digits of precision

This article doesn't meet the GAN criteria and I'm not very confident that it can without rewriting most of the article (due to the fact-checking issues). I'll put it on hold for a few days for the benefit of the doubt (in case there is any response or clarification needed), but I think it'd be best to fail it for now. Between the multiple unsourced sections, the need for a copyedit, the factual incongruences, all of the stuff mentioned above, and the other articles at GAN (which also needed major structural fixes), I don't think even a week would be sufficient for this article's needs. Please give it your own GAN review and have it looked over by others before submitting it for a formal review, because all of the issues I've brought up could have easily been rectified before a GAN. czar ♔ 19:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review Czar, I'll get to addressing most of those problems soon as I'm going to currently prioritise my efforts on the first Wipeout. Maybe I was intoxicated when I wrote some parts of this article regarding the grammatical errors (a score 84/101!?). I'll fix the minor issues first and will re-write most of the article soon. By the way, has this GAN failed? I notice that it is still on hold? Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, as discussed czar ♔ 16:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]