Talk:Forza Horizon

disagreement

so tell me exactly what is wrong with the below? ♠|RP|♠ 12:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

"Cars"

The game features many stock cars from many producer. Compared to Forza 4 the number of cars avalible are significantly low compared to its previous gamesn (although there are many downloadable packs to gain more cars) including forza 4,3. Cars such as "Team Race Cars" are missing. This is undersdtandable as Forza Horizon is more of a realistic car buying game and cars such as those what are missing would not be able to be purchased for private use in the real world.
Modding the cars is standard to all the forza games but has changed in detail when it comes to forza horizon. All the standard upgrades from turbos to intercoolers and engine swaps to induction swaps are still avalible but the option to fine tune features such as suspention and gear ratio is no longer avalible. Also stats such as wheele pressue and car damage are no longer avalible.

Calm down (WP:COOL). Looking at McDoobAU93's reason for removal, he/she has stated the reason for removal as :WP:GAMECRUFT and the fact that the text was uncited (did not have references). I'm not fully behind giving GameCruft as a reason, I would have described it as falling foul of WP:OR and the fact it had no references. I'll break the text down into chunks to help you understand why it was removed.

1. "Compared to Forza 4 the number of cars avalible are significantly low compared to its previous games": Says who? :This statement is claiming an important fact, but other people may want to check that this is true, to do that they need a reliable source to check it in. (see WP:V)
2. "This is undersdtandable as Forza Horizon is more of a realistic car buying game"

This is similar to the one above, but slightly different. This reads like a claim that a user is making, or a conclusion that they have reached themselves. It falls foul of Wikipedia's policy on Original Research (WP:OR) claims like that need to be backed up with reliable sources.

The final problem is the tone of the text and the way it is written, its not written in the style that would be expected of an encyclopaedia, but that will be fixed by other users if the text is properly referenced.

Hope the above helps. - X201 (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Got it. thanks... ♠|RP|♠ 14:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlp17 (talk • contribs)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 22:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I'll enjoy this one. If I haven't given you anything by Monday, ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• The leads needs rewriting. There's no info on its reception, way too much gameplay information, and do we really need to know anything about a rumoured game in the lead or such a detailed resume of later titles? There is also what appears to be scene setting in the lead which doesn't occur later in the article, which goes against what a lead generally does.
• "Gameplay" features no mention of the game's genre. It's also somewhat unencyclopedic in tone, looking more like a journalistic article than anything else.
• The entire last paragraph of "Gameplay" is uncited.
• From the Ferarri Dino image; "Extremely rare unicorn cars such as the Ferrari Dino 246 were added to increase game's community presence" - Did you mean "increase the game's community presence"?
• Link downloadable content, and if used in future paragraphs put "(DLC)" and use the DLC abbreviation for brevity.
• Second to last paragraph of "Development" is uncited.
• "Playground Games worked with DJ Rob da Bank–also being the founder of a music festival, Bestival" - This needs rephrasing. Too, many, breaks.
• "a more authentic music festival experience" - Just "a more authentic experience" would do.
• "In Japan, Famitsu gave it a score of one eight, one nine, one ten, and one nine for a total of .[43] " - You really don't need all those "one [...]" bits in there. Just say it "gave it a score of36 out of 40 points".
• Generally, there are too many quotes and not enough paraphrasing in the prose. Plus a lot of repetition because of this, turning the article into a tedious read.
• None of the YouTube-based "Making of" videos exist anymore, or at least not at their current URLs. This needs fixing. Also they all link to a playlist by ; if possible make them officially released stand-alone videos rather than part of a playlist.
• Several references need filling out with additional information such as the publisher, author, date, ect.
• The wikilink for the VideoGamer.com interview is red. Need removing.
• The links to the Digital Fix, Game Revolution and the Globe and Mail need archiving and url updating if possible.

@Tiraboschi: Putting this article on hold, and hopefully the issues above can be sorted as they're quite glaring faults with the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

@Tiraboschi: While minor faults have been addressed, the larger faults have not and prevent this article from passing. I've therefore decided to Fail this article. When suitable improvements and fixes have been made, this article can be renominated. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Forza Horizon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GamerPro64 (talk · contribs) 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Giving a stab at this review. Going to look through it before starting the process. GamerPro64 02:42, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments

• First comment I have comes from the sources. The reliability of TrueAchievements, Inquisitr, IDGB, and The Digital Fix are questionable for use, with IDGB might be unreliable itself. Also there is an IGN link that goes to their Wiki, which in itself is unreliable. GamerPro64 02:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • This nomination was first posted back in November so I understand the lack in activity from the nominator now. But with it being nominated with sources that may not be reliable does not make me believe this is ready to become a Good Article. As such I am failing this nomination. GamerPro64 17:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

You can take IGN's source.

https://www.ign.com/articles/forza-horizon-1-and-2-servers-will-shut-down-in-august 47.198.108.186 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)