Talk:Checkered Flag (1994 video game)/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 22:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Not much to say! It's is in an excellent state for a short article and is comprehensively sourced. Some initial thoughts from me are below. I've tried to separate what is and isn't relevant to the GAN, given that many reviewers tend to import their own unrelated thoughts in the process. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Index

* This is an issue I think is directly relevant to the GAN.
  This is an issue I think is indirectly relevant, but worth addressing.
? This is just a personal preference or comment that could help.

Article

  The gameplay section is a little slight, although so is the game, I assume. Some additional details gleamed from the manual include the number of tracks, pre-race customization of car color, lap count, and user interface, what the mentioned handling characteristics are, such as the touted steering and wheel memory features. I'm interested if the sources have anything more to say.

 Done -- I added the missing options into the gameplay section. As far as i know, none of the sources discuss the steering and wheel memory features in any meaningful detail. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

 Question: The article is clear that the game is a conversion of the Lynx version, but as the game was originally announced as a sequel, do sources note the game differs or expands on the original?

From what i could find with the sources, the game's name was changed at least three times (Jaguar Formula One Racing, Checkered Flag II, and Redline Racing) before settling on the final name. I denoted on the gameplay section that unlike the original game, it does not have multiplayer. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

? The use of citations is not WP:OVERKILL but at times also enter the territory of not being easily attributable to the information presented over other sources. It's not pertinent to the GAN but I'd suggest a WP:CITETRIM, especially where the content in the sentences are fairly straightforward. That said, I understand the manual should not be the main source in this section.

 Done -- I used the manual in the development section to corroborate the staff names listed in the Man!ac referece (i.e. the developer's names). However, i decided to reduce the usage of the manual in the gameplay section. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

  A general rule of thumb is to avoid starting a paragraph on a pronoun (i.e. It was produced). Mentioning Checkered Flag doesn't need to be all the time, but can sometimes help lead a paragraph, which pronouns referring to the game can then follow on from below.

 Done -- I changed the line in the development section. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The review section is well done but also could do with improvement outside of the GAN:

* All of whom compared it to Virtua Racing - most, but not all critics stated this.

 Done -- I corrected the line. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

? The reception section provides broad and well-researched review citations that are listed one by one in the section. The manual of style suggests that thematically organizing these reviews with topic sentences is more effective than the approach taken in the article.

If you mean putting the critics' comments regarding certain aspects of the game such as visuals, etc. I mean, i would but that aspect is something that it's still not my forte regarding the reception section of a game article. That's why i take the approach you see in the reception section because it's easier for me. If anybody comes and does a better revamp of the reception section than i could, i don't have any issues with it :) Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem at all. It's definitely tricky. When I write articles from the ground-up, it usually involves selective reading to piece together reviews by their comments around things like gameplay, graphics, controls, and so forth, and sort of assemble it in draft. At any rate, whilst a recommendation of the MOS, it is obviously not a requirement for a good article and I bring it up as a good practice suggestion. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

? The sentence on sales is too slight to include in its own section, but too distinctive from the other content to bury it between the reviews. It may be better to include this at the top.

 Done -- Moved the sales data to the first paragraph in the reception section. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

? Given how long the reception section is, there's enough content to subdivide the last paragraph into a 'Retrospective reception' section which is sometimes the practice if you like.

 Done -- I introduced the retrospective coverage sub-section. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Vrxces:I'll get around your comments later today after work! Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Vrxces:OK. I managed to get around your comments. Let me know for anything else! Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.