Talk:Wipeout 64/GA2
Appearance
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)
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.
- Hmm, though "machine guns" and "missiles" might be WP:OVERLINKING I've linked "plasma bolt" to plasma, but let me know what you think ☠ Jaguar ☠ 12:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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?
- 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.
- Personally I think that the template can be updated to Template:Track listing
- 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%
- Category:Psygnosis games and Category:Midway Games can also be added to the list of categories.
- 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
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- 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. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Article looks great now. Wipeout 64 promoted to . Congratulations. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)