Jump to content

Talk:Wipeout 64/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 13:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Body

[edit]
  • At the time of the game's release developers Psygnosis had been owned for 5 years by Sony Computer Entertainment, for whose hardware all subsequent Wipeout games have been released exclusively. - should be developer only, no "s"
  • Wipeout series including analogue control (benefitting from the Nintendo 64's controller) - Personal opinion, but a bracket in lead don't look good.
  • the game received mixed to positive opinions from critics and players alike. - "mixed to positive" is vague.
  • many critics praised the game for its individuality, offering more tracks and racing craft, unique atmosphere and "superior track design". - I was expecting a noun after "individuality"
  • However, despite its praise the game was criticised for its slower frame rate and opinion - Should simply be slow frame rate.
  • Most aspects of the gameplay did not differ with the previous two titles. - Should be differ from instead of differ with
  • Wipeout is based in a futuristic anti-gravity setting - Based in refers to places. It should be based on.
  • where pilots would race each other or computer-controlled A.I - Personal opinion, but I will add "against" before each other
  • A.I., aerodynamics and split-screen multiplayer need to be wikilinked
  • This is what paved the way for the Eliminator mode introduced in Wipeout 3. - "is what" is not really necessary.
  • Wipeout 64 provides most of the same weapons as Wipeout 2097 along with new weapons unique to each team. - I personally think that "features" will be a better word than "provides".
  • The name of the weapons can also be wikilinked. Not everyone know what "plasma bolt" is after all.
  • The Designers Republic were not involved in designing the promotional material for Wipeout 64 (although they designed the successor, Wipeout 3). - Then why it is mentioned in the development section if they are not involved in this game?
  • They designed all promotional material for every Wipeout game except this one, but I now realise that this article should have a "beginner's mind" rather than be written for Wipeout veterans. Removed, despite development material being short enough as it is ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SCEE Studio Liverpool - Should be SCE Studio Liverpool only
  • IGN review of the game: "in case you're wondering why there is load-time in between levels: according to Psygnosis, the short break is needed for sound decompression." - Instead of using a direct quote, it should be paraphrased
  • Psygnosis also made the most of the Nintendo 64's analogue stick, utilising the analogue stick (rendering the D-Pad obsolete) - It made the most of the analogue stick and it utilize it sounds a bit redundant.
  • Psygnosis' in-game music team - Instead of in-game, it should be in-house.
  • czar removed the track listing, though I think that Wipeout is very music-orientated I would have kept it in but I do agree with his decision. Do you think it should be brought back? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game received mixed to positive reviews and considerable praise from many critics. - Mixed to positive is also vague. It received considerable praise also sounds unnecessary and contradictory
  • 84/100 from MetaCritic - Metacritic, that C don't need to be capitalized.
  • Most reviews compared the game with F-Zero X which came out a month earlier - Personally, I think that "came out" sounds a bit informal.
  • Should be Gaming Age, not GamingAge
  • Popup and a slow frame-rate - Personal opinion, but I will add a hyphen in Popup. Framerate needed to be wikilinked
  • GameRankings score need to be round up to something like 87%
  • I look at the GA1 review, and find that "Wipeiout 64" is not addressed.

References

[edit]
  • Source 6 is unreliable
  • IGN, Metacritic, Kotaku and Nintendojo is filled in both work field and the publisher field. I personally think that if they are the same, only 1 of them is necessary, while another one can remain blank.
  • It seems that some sentences in the gameplay section and the music subsection is unsourced.

Review

[edit]

Overall it is a well-written article. However, there is some issues need to be addressed. I also found that the article is a bit confusing to read, and that the development section is really, a bit too short.
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and y:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. 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:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I will leave it on hold for a week, and if issues are addressed, the article to good to go. Good luck. AdrianGamer (talk) 06:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AdrianGamer: thanks for the review! I think I have addressed everything. I've added some new references as well as removing some unreliable ones. I have addressed all of the prose issues and have also paraphrased some parts of the article. It's a shame that the development is too short but I can find virtually nothing on its development. There is, however, a great deal of information on previous titles but Wipeout 64 is not covered very well. I notice that Wipeout 3's development section is far too short for an FA. Anyway, please let me know what you think? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more issue is that the second paragraph of the gameplay section needs one more source. If that is addressed I will promote the article. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AdrianGamer I must have forgot that. I've added one new ref to the second paragraph and used another citation thathad the same information in the source ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:26, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article looks great now. Wipeout 64 promoted to . Congratulations. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wipeout_64/GA2&oldid=1136223589"