Talk:Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing/GA2

GA re-review

I've gone through the article and, at this time I don't believe that it qualifies for GA Status. Please see my comments below:

1. It is well written. - Needs Improvement

Although the previous reviewer gave this category a weak pass, I think the prose is a little too awkward for a Good article. Although the cases that the previous reviewer pointed out were fixed, there were points that confused me.

"There are no obstacles for the player to negotiate in Big Rigs, as the truck may freely be driven on and off roads without any loss of traction, straight up hills, through structures, and even out of the map's boundaries. The truck falls through bridges as if they do not even exist."

The statement that there are no obstacles, and that the truck may fall through bridges seem incompatible to me. Although I think I understand what is meant, the way that it is written seems to be confusing.

"Big Rigs was subject to a great number of negative reviews" - Doesn't really flow right

"and so this screen may appear to end the race before it even begins." I'm unclear about the exact effect of this screen. Does it _appear to end_ the race (and thus the race still goes on), or does it appear (*poof*) _to end the race_ and the game is over?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. - Needs improvement

I think there are a couple of other things that really do need some sort of citation. There's nothing about the patch that was released that's soruced either inline, or as a reference.

I am giving it a "Needs Improvement" instead of the "Weak Pass" that the previous reviewer did, because, as far as I can tell, one of the cites doesn't back up what's being claimed.

The Article states:

"Netjak rewrote the code of their site to allow the game to receive a score of 0.0"

The source states:

"The only reason this game doesn't get a negative score is that I don't think our php gurus envisioned us ever giving a game a negative score, and because I reserve negative scores for a game that makes me physically ill."

I don't see any evidence that the code was re-written to allow a zero.

Also see the comment about "development flaws" below.

3. It is broad in its coverage. -- Needs improvement

I know that in the notes left to the previous reviewer, you said that there is no development information. I do have to agree with them that it really seems like a big hole. Was it meant to be that bad, if not why? It really seems to me that if a game is notable due to it being bad, that there would be some coverage in the game development world about it. Maybe there is not a full post-mortem, but I'd expect at least a few comments.

The statement "Due to a developer oversight..." makes it seem like there is some information out there about it. If that's not the case, then that line presents OR/POV issues and needs to be revised.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy -- Needs Improvement

Although most of the statements that seemed POV before have been resolved, there are a couple that stand out to me.

"Big Rigs managed to be a commercial success. According to GameSpot, Big Rigs sold well over 20,000 units" -- 20,000 units being a success is POV. Although the game might not have been a complete failure, I don't think many game developers would be happy selling only 20,000 copies.

"However, the patch simply replaced the broken track with a mirror image of the first track, without changing the corresponding preview image or name." --- The use of the term "simply" here suggests that the developers took an easy way out. Although this is probably the case, without any evidence to the motivation of the dev team, I don't think it's appropriate.

5. It is stable. - Pass

Not many changes since it was nominated.

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic. - Needs Improvement

Although an article doesn't need images to be a good article, the ones that are included need to be properly tagged. This includes a declaration of the fair use rationale. I have listed this category as needing improvement because the screen capture of the trophy does not have a declaration about why it should be considered fair use.

I do (also) agree with the previous reviewer. It would be nice to see an actual screen shot (other than the trophy) from the game. The Bethling^(Talk) 07:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I will properly tag the trophy image right now and will later get another screenshot showing the ability to drive through virtually anything in any given level. Cirus^{Talk/Contribs} 20:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So what's being said here is that this article is doomed to a B-class unless we find some dev info? *sighs* Hbdragon88 22:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, good luck with that. Stellar Stone has been pretty low-profile for basically its entire existance. They didn't really offer any information about the game.