Talk:Wheels of Aurelia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleWheels of Aurelia has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 27, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
March 21, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
July 3, 2018Good article nomineeNot listed
February 26, 2021Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Wheels of Aurelia/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs) 23:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Lede[edit]

  • It may be vital to notate that Santa Ragione is an Italian studio (likewise in the gameplay section).
  • It is a little awkward that there is one sentence for PC, and the PS4/Xbox one ports, but Switch has a separate sentence of its own. I recommend that either the switch port gets merged with the first sentence, or have all ports be on a separate sentence from the initial release.
  • It also may be unnecessary to document the exact date of each port. I believe year or month and year should be acceptable.
    • Done. It kinda goes against what I like with dates, but the body does go into depth, and the release date isn't the be-all and end-all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The summary of the reception on the lede doesn't accurately match the information on the reception section below, in my humble opinion.
    • I'll work on this after I've looked at the reception comments below. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Android version isn't verified in the infobox.
  • Patrick Leger isn't mentioned in the infobox but is referenced in the article.

Gameplay and Premise[edit]

  • Whilst Lella and Olga's reasons for leaving Italy are initially unknown.[8] they want to leave for different reasons; Lella is attempting to re-convene with her former kidnapper and Olga is attempting to get to France to have an abortion.
    ^These two sentences are a bit awkward to read together. I recommend revising.
  • The gameplay and premise are intertwined, which makes it harder to verify what sources are covering what. I may recommend you add in references for the plot just for the purpose of helping to distinguish what sources are covering what. Either that or separate Premise and Gameplay if possible.
    • I'd love to seperate, but there isn't much in terms of actual gameplay, other than driving the car, and picking dialogue options. I think everything is already sourced? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the characters reach new locations, a cutscene with the characters placed over a postcard of the area will play. The player can visit Rome, Civitavecchia, Bracciano, Piombino, Siena and Viareggio during the trip, but may visit a limited range of locations per playthrough. The player may change Lella's travel companions, dump hitchhikers, and change the vehicle Lella is driving at these locations, based on the player's choice of dialogue.
    ^This information isn't sourced.
  • The game is set in an Italian sports car, and drive the motorway Via Aurelia.
    ^The way this is worded is odd. Can you clarify?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)    [reply]
  • Now that I had more time reviewing. A lot of the information on the gameplay and premise is redundant. The gameplay can be significantly shorter. Looking back, i don't think this is much of a synopsis and more of a premise.
    • Sure, I've done a cull, I think it looks a bit more like a premise with a slight bit more information that the player controls the car and some dialogue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release[edit]

  • IMHO, it's not necessary to mention that the information came from an interview or the use of "according to the developers". Can be revised to be more straight-forward.
  • The Humble Bundle beta release should be in the same paragraph as the release history.
  • Based on the sources used, I don't see the developers describing their own dialogue system as unique. I do see mentions of interviewers posing questions with the term unique in there, but I don't see it warranted in the article.
    • I've moved the bit about the dialogue up into gameplay. 16:17, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I see Wheels of Aurelia are abbreviated to just Wheels. I noticed only one source abbreviating it to just "Wheels" so far. It's better to not abbreviate it so it doesn't cause confusion. If more sources found, mention that its sometimes abbreviated as Wheels somewhere in the article.
  • I don't see any mention of "Out Run" mentioned at all in the reference used for it. In addition, i don't think it should be reworded so it isn't so factual if the source is found for that.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source 17 does talk about Out Run. However, I've changed one where they've specifically said this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My mistake on that. I was ctrl + F on "Out Run" not "Outrun". I was going to cross that out until I had an edit conflict.
  • The sources used make no mentions of "Commedia all'italiana" anywhere on the interviews. is there any source out there that mentions it explicitly?
    • The new source I've added calls it "Commedia sexy all'italiana", but it's the same deal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some quotes that don't seem as important or can be reduced to simple sentences. I attempted to assist in reducing the quotes, but they can be reduced further. There is more vital information in the Gamasutra source that gives a better idea of the development of the game. Information such as how they chose to rush the development, didn't achieve what they wanted with the driving mechanics, and much more. What Riva claims is an inspiration to the game is good but its not the most vital part of the development and should be revised to being more concise. If need be, you can move one of his quotes into it using template:Quote box. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

  • I don't see Switch Player being a valid reviewer in WP:VG/RS. I'm willing to consider them reliable for news and interviews in this case, but perhaps find another reviewer to replace. I noticed Pocket Gamer and Touch Arcade have reviews available.
    • I can add the others too. I can't see an issue with Switch player, which is a physical magazine release with an editorial roll. I've asked for it to be checked at VG/RS before, but didn't get much back. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll leave this one alone for now. I suspect it could be reliable, but i don't think its because it has a physical magazine (they're self-published for one).Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure. I don't really see how it would be unreliable, but willing to chat it out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • will add more information soon.
  • There is a quote in almost every sentence. I assisted in reducing the amount, but I think it should be reduced further.
    • I've culled some of these quotes. I'm really not great with these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall[edit]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'll start on the review as soon as I have more time opened up. I haven't had a lot of time latelyBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely has more potential. I'm feeling good about this article and think it needs an additional week of ironing out the kinks.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
after reviewing these article extensively, i am happy to report that its a Pass. Thank you for your hard work.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, thank you for your time and fantastic review! A little bit of backstory, this article was one of the first article I ever created from scratch, and I put so much CRUFT into it I didn't really know what I was doing. It's been on my to-do list to fix for a long time, but I'm not super familiar with the GA Criteria in VG articles. Your review made the article significantly better, so thank you for picking it up. If you have an article for review at any time, I'll let me know and I'll pick it up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wheels_of_Aurelia&oldid=1202240736"