Talk:Wipeout 2097/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 00:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review complete, placing on hold for one week. Freikorp (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Lead
I'd reword "released in the Wipeout series, and was released a year after the original game in the series" to avoid using the word series twice in one sentence, when there are easy substitutes available.
Changed to "and is the direct sequel of the original game released the previous year" - I hope this doesn't sound too choppy, I can always change it again ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fail point, but is it necessary to wikilink 'PCs running Windows 95' when you could just link 'Windows 95'?
Good point, linked Windows 95 ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay
Should the first instance of 'Crafts' be capitalised? And I think you should provide a one sentence explanation, in the first paragraph before you start talking about crafts, detailing exactly exactly what one is. It's some kind of weaponised hovercraft, right?
That's right, the vehicles in the game are futuristic hovercraft with weapons, so I've elaborated on what a 'craft' is. I have no idea why the first instance of 'crafts' is capitalised, removed! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rewording "fictitious air-brakes" to something like "a fictionalised method of air braking", since there is a such thing as an "air break"
Never knew that... thanks, added "a fictionalised method of air braking" as suggested ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no information on multiplayer modes in the prose.
Added a little on multiplayer in the fourth paragraph to the section. Not a lot to mention as it carries over the two-player split screen option before (which is thanks to the PS1 and Saturn's two controller ports) ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Development
"The player can also take on damage from enemy fire and be blown up, but the ship can be "recharged" to health at the pit stop in exchange for a precious few seconds of the race." Shouldn't this be in the gameplay section?
Good catch, done, and with this I also replaced it from something that looked like original research from the gameplay section ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're doubling up on information here. I've already been told the game was "unlike its predecessor" in that you can now damage opponents crafts with weapons. Also i'm confused, gameplay states that unlike its predecessor, players are "offered the chance to eliminate competition (or at least subdue them temporarily) by the use of weapons" whereas developments states the game has an "array of new weapons in addition to the ones established in the first game". So what do the weapons in the first game do if they don't damage of temporarily immobilise opponents?
In the first game if you hit somebody with a weapon it would merely stall them, ie. slow them down rather than destroy them. I think I've made this clearer ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any information available on why the Playstation soundtrack features multiple artists, yet the other versions were stuck with just the house band?
There is no information about that in the source given, but like the first game I would pin it down to copyright issues as the artists in the PlayStation version would not have given their permission for their music to be launched on a Sega console (this happened with its predecessor). I have added this. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Designer's Republic is linked twice. A link is made to the original game earlier in the article, and also in the next section.
Ugh, fixed! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception
IGN is linked twice.
That's embarrassing, fixed ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need to provide an abbreviation for (PSM) since the magazine is not referred to a second time?
I must have got confused while writing this, removed ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"IGN noted similar praise", is 'noted' the appropriate word here (also see WP:WORDS)? How about simply 'gave'.
Reworded ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:
I think the information that the game took "its inspiration from Formula 1 breakthroughs" needs an inline citation, as does the phrase "Wipeout 2097 moved the franchise forward".
Yep the stuff about "formula 1 breakthroughs" are mentioned 26 times from "The rise and fall of Sony Studio Liverpool" source, so added a citation for that. Also it mentioned that 2097 moved the franchise forward, so added that too. Can't believe I didn't use that source for this article, as I have only used it in the first Wipeout. That source is like a bible for all Wipeout fans! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Gamefaqs a reliable source for the statement "To cater for the increase in Wipeout players, an easier learning curve was introduced whilst keeping the difficulty at top end for the experienced gamers"? It's my understanding that Gamefaqs is only really reliable for release dates and non-opinionated stuff like that.
Can't believe I left that in from August! Removed and replaced ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What makes 'Visual Attack Formation' reliable? Did you take it to RSN as per the last review?
It doesn't appear in the reliable search engine for VG sources (found at WP:VG/RS), which I use as a basic principle. I have removed this from the article ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs content is user-generated, and therefore unreliable. Can you find a better online source, or at least cite the albums themselves?
Sorry for leaving these. in. Unfortunately I couldn't find the album itself but thankfully all music listings in this game is mentioned in the "Rise and fall of SCE Liverpool" source, and also one in a digitalspy reference, so I added them both accordingly. ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Many critics praised the unique blend of techno music..." If many critics praised this, can we get more than one reference? Otherwise reword and attribute to single review only.
The music, or more specifically the "unique techno blend" is mentioned in various sources, and I thought it was unnecessary to include all of the citations for that one sentence, so I summarised it in the opening like I do for most receptions. If you want me to I could simply reword it to a single review or cut down on the citations? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox information, particularly release dates, needs reliable sources.
They aren't present in the previous game, which is a GA, and only one release source is present in Wipeout 3, which is FA? I'll try to find sources, but I have brought up a few other VG GAs which do not have sources for release dates, as I didn't think they were required ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
As Czar asked in the initial review, considering how well received this game was, did it not win any awards? Are you sure you can't find more information on development? There's still "virtually nothing on the development, why they made the decisions, who the team/staff was, their budgeting, their goals, their problems".
Unfortunately, there is nothing I can find on this game winning awards. All the Wipeout games were very received, with Wipeout 3 winning awards and Wipeout Pure winning a dozen, remaining among the best selling games on the PSP. I have searched various reliable sources, but the only mention I could find was from this source, mentioning that "Wipeout 2097 went Gold" and "this award-winning game to the Mac" but it doesn't say what awards it won, nor what Gold means! I'm sure it did win some, but as I don't have the physical copy I'm afraid I'll never know if it did win anything. And as with the shortage of information, there is a large black hole of information on the internet regarding 90s games like these, so information on development is hard to come by and I hope that "virtually nothing on the development" was an exaggeration from the previous GAN as I have found new information on the "rise and fall" source I found, and have implemented a little in. Hope that helps ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:
A caption for the inbox picture wouldn't hurt. The picture indicates it is the PAL version though there are Japanese characters on it. What country was this cover art released in?
Good point, it's the European box art, added ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@Freikorp: thanks for the review! I really appreciate it. I think I have everything, please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 18:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Thanks for addressing these concerns. I am satisfied the article meets GA requirements. Citations for release dates wold be nice, but I guess they are not necessary. Fair enough about the lack of development for a 90s game. I'd prefer if you added at least another inline citation for the " Many critics praised the unique blend of techno music" sentence, but as long as other sources used in the article mention it i'm satisfied. My only final concern is that "or at least subdue them temporarily" still appears in gameplay; can you clarify what the difference between stalling (in the original game) and temporarily subduing is? The sentence seems to imply that you could not temporarily subdue someone in the previous game. Nevertheless i'm happy to pass this article now. Cheers. Freikorp (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful review, Freikorp! I have got to that immediately as I would hate to leave a GA half finished. I reworded it to "offered the chance to eliminate other players from the competition through the use of weapons", added two inline citations that has praise of the music in their reviews, and will also try to find something on its release dates, as I'm sure it's out there somewhere. Anyway, thanks for the review, I'll finish your GANs tomorrow morning! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]