Talk:Destruction Derby 2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 15:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Time to eliminate some of this GA backlog! Comments to follow soon. Indrian (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Gameplay

•  DoneI don't think we really need the "see also" pointing back to the original game's gameplay section, as the original game is already linked in the article, and it should be generally understood that a sequel is going to share gameplay elements with the original.
  • Done. Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Done"Like the original, players race on up to seven circuits" - Saying they race on up to seven circuits implies that a person can choose between one and seven circuits to race on as part of a single race. I assume this should actually be "one of seven circuits" or something similar, but please do correct me if I am wrong.
  • Fixed. Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
• "in which the goal is to inflict as much damage as possible" - Is this within a time limit? Up to a certain score? Something else entirely? Should be quantified.
  • I think it's until the player is destroyed or is the only car still running, but the manual doesn't actually say that: it just says the aim is to inflict as much damage as possible on the other cars. I can't find another source that explicitly quantifies it either. Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Okay, we can leave this as it is then if the manual is vague on that point. Indrian (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Done"Destruction Derby 2 supports Namco's NeGcon controller, and players can quit a race at any time." - There are two completely different ideas being joined in this compound sentence, so they should be separated. I am also not sure this is really the spot to introduce some of this, as it feels like both paragraphs of the gameplay section concern different modes of playing with this info sandwiched in between them.
  • Moved to the end of the section. Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Development

• "as some members of the team were involved with them" - Lost an antecedent here: I am not sure what "them" refers to.
  • I thought it was obvious that "them" referred to Jug and Tuscan, but I've changed it to "those bands". Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • You're right; it really is obvious. I am not sure why this felt unclear to me before; perhaps it had something to do with where the line breaks fell on my screen. Anyway, I am actually going to change this back to the way it was originally. Sorry about that. Indrian (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Done"Because soft-spoken commentary would not fit with the soundtrack, Commentator Paul Page performed as the announcer" - The article does not explain how the first statement about soft-spoken commentary connects to the second statement about a particular announcer being selected. Was he known for loud and/or aggressive commentary?
  • Added the info. Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I tweaked the language a bit more here. Indrian (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Done"The tracks had more realism than the original" - How were the tracks more realistic? Is it just that the graphics were updated to look more lifelike? Or is it because the course layouts were more true to life as well? The article is vague on this point.
  • I get the impression it's the latter (because of the obstacles), but I could be wrong. The source just says realism was an effort. Reworded. Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • That's much better. Indrian (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Done"Wrecking Racing was meant to enable a broad range of strategies. This was hard to balance, but it proved to be possible to win with every such strategy." - Just what exactly are these strategies. By using the phrase "every such strategy" the article implies a finite number.
  • Not sure the strategies aren't in WP:GAMECRUFT territory, but I've added them. Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • The way you worded it maintains summary style, so I don't think it devolves into cruft. They really need to be mentioned, or the phrase "every such strategy" is not properly qualified. Indrian (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

And that's it. I made a fair number of edits to the article, which has some flow and stylistic problems. I think we can get it whipped into shape, however, so I will put this review  On hold while some of my concerns are addressed. Indrian (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Indrian: I think I've fixed most of the issues raised. Is there nothing wrong with the reception section? It's basically a list in prose form. Does it need changing? Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Reception section looks fine to me. I have done a little more rewriting here and there just to improve the readability and flow of the article, and I am now ready to promote. Well done! Indrian (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)