Talk:Need for Speed: Undercover

Information Deletion

Well, as of new-a-days, its been obvious, that whenever you start a page, there's some cop around here deleting everything you have added without adding the proper citation mistakenly. I will request to them, if you really want to contribute to the articles, please find out the proper citation to prove it right, OR prove it wrong along with proper citation obviously. Other ways leave it as is, please.

Its kinda rude to delete information, just the way you can (with a tag "Speculation"). I am not getting no personal attack, but as of working with current topics I have encountered this situations a lots of time. After all everything soothes up, so why take pressures, huh !!!

Use This TALK PAGE to discuss everything you feel is not right to put in the topic, BEFORE deleting and only progress toward deletion if you have positive response to it. Actually we are not racing here, are we? (he he he...)

As of the current state of the article, I think there are some broken references, and some lines are seriously missing citations. If you manage to find out some resource, and unsure to order and organize them properly there in topic, post 'em here.

Have a good Editing time !!! – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 19:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I know what you're saying, but at the moment, the Eurogamer article is the only article on Undercover. It mentions no release date and no platforms. You can't simply add platforms because that's what expected, or release time because that's what expected. When a game has only just been announced, hard sources are needed to dispell rumours from fact. The burden isn't on the person deleting on the information, it's on the person adding it to prove it's right - else what's there to stop someone going round adding false information and saying "if you can't disprove it, leave it in the page". I basically said this much on your talk page anyway. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Hey Hey !!! I have my hands up man !!! I meant no you in the post in no way... actually I was writing it when you were possibly undoing the changes... I wont mind though. (And you were writing these, when I was writing you messege. Ha ha ha...) – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 19:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:VER in a nutshell: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." It's as simple as that. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As MrStalker says, your position is not consistent with the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia that have arrived at by wide consensus. See WP:V and WP:RS for starters.  Xihr  23:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've edited somethings that were write like an advertising. ShifterBr ^(talk) 04:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC -3)

iPod media

With the addition of iPod Touch/Phone, how do we specify this in the "Media" section of the infobox? I assume it will be a download? -- Lyverbe (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Boxart

The boxart of the PC version shown is not currently like that. PC games don't have the black bar at the top that says "PC DVD" anymore. Instead, it just says PC DVD ROM on the lower left. This should be updated. --Blah911 (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can find such a image, please post a link here. --MrStalker ^(talk) 13:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A truck from Burnout Paradise

Has anyone seen a screenshot of the same truck driving around in Burnout Paradise? It can be seen at the forums. 70.45.160.124 (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No. "Question" closed. -- Lyverbe (talk) 03:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks. 70.45.160.124 (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Christina Milian

Milian will be the lead female in the game. Here is the fixed ref. Corn.u.co.pia / Disc.us.sion 06:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

References

System requirements

This site has posted minimum system requirements, but I'm not sure how much it can be trusted. It doesn't provide its source. Shall we add them anyway? anyone know a better source? -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is for real. It is missing recommended sys reqs.--SkyWalker (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the EA Support page which has Minimum and Recommended Requirements, and it is much higher than what's in the article. However, it is a sort of a forum post, with super-long url, so I just left it alone for now. Should we fix it and also cite it? Spiritaway5177 (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A forum post is not a reliable source. When I get the game I'll try to remember to fill in the system requirements from the box/manual itself.  Xihr  07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Cop Modes

There are cops mode confirmed like Criminal Scramble mode on the North American EA's store and some places that the game for pre-order not just for the Nintendo DS, but also the PS3, X-Box 360 and PC versions. While the european EA stores and some places that the game listed for pre-order claim that Criminal Scramble only for the Nintendo DS. Chase Down mode will be on the PSP version of the game and Cops N Robbers mode will be on the Wii version as part of the Wii's Party Play mode as a offline mode while for the PS3, X-Box 360 and PC it will be a online mode. About the Criminal Scramble mode for the other consoles and PC I will get further info when its available.

Red Polar Bear Ranger (Red Polar Bear Ranger 12:33, 31 October 2008 (CUT)

I heard on the official EA NFS forums that Criminal Scramble is a mode (in pretty vague language). I promptly asked whatever the heck a Criminal Scramble mode would be, and did not get an answer. Thanks for your information on this issue! Kenavt (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I learned Criminal Scramble mode will only be in the DS version while the PC, 360 and PS3 versions get the online versions of the Nintendo Wii's Cops N Robbers mode. However in the console and PC version's career mode there will be some jobs where the player does get to chase bad guys but in their career car though. Of course the PSP version gets Chase Down mode. Of course the cell phone version has no cop modes at all. Red Polar Bear Ranger (Red Polar Bear Ranger 19:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I can't speak for other consoles, but the PAL version of NFS: Undercover on the PS2 at least has Chasedown included as a fully playable game mode. Assassin Droid _talk 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Map size

Oh come on Xirh, you can't honestly request a 'fact' for the "map size being the biggest in all NFS worlds". It's like asking a 'fact' for someone saying "A bicycle is smaller than a car". Just by looking at the map, it's clear to see that it's bigger than Most Wanted which was then the biggest (wasn't it?). We shouldn't put 'fact' just for the fun of having the dirty text "Citation needed" displayed in an article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have even more stupid things like that. Everything got to be referenced. I just wonder what would happened if all the link go dead. --SkyWalker (talk) 12:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I missed this comment when it was made in the talk page, which is why I didn't respond. If you guys think that citations aren't required, then maybe you should reread WP:N and WP:RS. If the statement is true, then it should be trivial to find a reliable source to back it up, so this complaint makes little sense. (Reliable sources don't have to be Web sites, so the comment about "links go[ing] dead" makes little sense.) And, while you're at it, User:SkyWalker, you might want to check out WP:NPA. If you guys have a problem with these well-founded policies and guidelines established by consensus, then maybe you should take it up on the talk pages of those Wikipedia pages, not out on me.  Xihr  23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I have is requesting a citation for something that is not doubtful. "Citation needed" disturbs reading and isn't something that looks nice in an article, so we should try to "fix" them ASAP. If I'm the only one who thinks this or if you (Xihr) strongly wish to have a source for this information, then fine, we'll put it in, but personnaly, I don't feel it's necessary. -- Lyverbe (talk) 02:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot and Car List Missing

There is no proper detail of the game plot unlike previous Need For Speed articles, and there is no "Car" section which gives the list of available cars, these two are one of the most important features of Need For Speed articles on Wikipedia, ProStreet page has the same problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.91.191.4 (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Plot section is fine and it's far from being considered an important feature of the game. It gives a general idea of what the game story is about and shouldn't have too much detail because it's only a game compared to a movie or book. As for the car list, it's not missing, it simply shouldn't be there. Such list is not accepted in Wikipedia, so that's why you won't find it in the ProStreet article (or any NFS article). -- Lyverbe (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that since the game was only released a few weeks ago, the article hasn't matured to a stable state yet. Be patient.  Xihr  22:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Havok Game Engine

During the credits, it's proven that Need For Speed Undercover uses the Havok engine. The heroic driving engine is just one of the features in the game, not the game engine itself. Look it up in the credits, and you'll see it towards the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by APR76 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Similarities to Most Wanted Map

Upon playing the game yesterday morning as a Christmas present, I noticed that by taking a look at the in-game map there were striking similarities in each of the zones in Tri-City to the boroughs of Rockport in Need for Speed: Most Wanted. Can we add useful information about the geographical layout and the comparisons to the Most Wanted map that is used in Undercover within the next few months? Brandon (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't see how this is anything other than original research.  Xihr  07:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I saw a spot in TriCity that was clearly a reference to "Underground 2" and even a tunnel that brought me back to "Hot Pursuit". Original research. -- Lyverbe (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too. Some sections of each bourough look similar to those of Most Wanted's bourough's.

However, overall it's a totally different map from Most Wanted and it's larger. There doesn't appear to be as many off-road shortcuts like Most Wanted, and there are no car lots or one-stop shops. I've also noticed that all car customisation is done inside the safe house. Which was the same as in Need for Speed:Carbon Lee911 (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Cars

I'm now going to put on the Cars that are within the game. P.S. Yes receiving the Game as a gift (..yay..) Awsome gameplay and storyline. Gaming-Kid 18:49 28 Decemeber 2008 (UTC)

A car list is inappropriate according to Wikipedia's policies.  Xihr  08:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

A B C D Marmalaad (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Critism keeps on getting deleted from NFS undercover

Why is it these items keep getting deleteted - shouldn't the general public know about these problems. Ngaugekid 12.05 29 Decemeber 2008 (UTC)

I just removed it with the comment "POV, unsourced and badly written." Without any reliable source, it can easily be seen as a personal opinion. Also, the way it was written was completely different from the rest of the article (or, for that matter, any Wikipedia articles). Provide reliable sources to your edit and use the Show Preview button to make sure it perfectly blends with the rest of the article and follows the Wikipedia standards. -- Lyverbe (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Reception

This section is constantly being edited and now looks really ugly with all the links and "citation needed". I believe this section has too much detail and it opens up the need to always edit it. We should provide the basic information (a single 3-4 lines paragraph) and the links will take care of the rest by pointing websites that have complete reviews. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You do make valid points, however, an article can't be judged based on how it looks. The 'cleanup required' tag is there because the entire article needs to be cleaned cause it's "ugly". I disagree with you on it providing "too much detail", for a classic example is the reception provided in the movie, The Dark Knight. Now if we applied your suggestion of allowing the links to "take care of the rest" then The Dark Knight's Reception section and every other article would need to be changed. In other words, it is inpractical and not exactly wikipedia-like to reduce the article based on the points you have made. However, I will say that the reception section could be condensed taking care to ensure the valid points raised by reviewers aren't removed. By the way, the citation needed tags are there because information has been provided without a reference to backup the information.- Jack ^(Talk) 11:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this particular sentence of the reception section needs further citations.

""You ... run missions where you steal cars, make 'special' deliveries and things like this now and again, but you never actually see any sequences that show how the cops are putting the evidence together or anything of that sort."[citation needed] Instead, "[Chase Lihn] will tell you [what] you need to do to get on the inside of a racing group in order to get dirt on them, and then after a race she'll say 'We have enough, let's move in.' [But you're left asking:] How did that help at all?"[26]"

I added that material and the two sentences I quoted from IGN were on the same page, back to back in fact, which is why I only provided one citation for both. The only reason I split the two sentences up was because it fit better that way.Splew (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that academic institutions (like the one I attended) make it mandatory for any direct quotes used to each be sourced whether they be split up or not. Furthermore, if something is quoted a reference ensures that quote can be found when need be and avoids copyright issues. By the way, it is just a matter of moving your reference to the first sentence and making the second one connected to the first, very simply I might add. Don't get me wrong, I do understand the point of view you are coming from but I feel this is needed in any such case.- Jack ^(Talk) 01:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I could put the two sentences together again under one set of quotes.Splew (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What you have done now is fine. My only other suggestion is to see if the quote can be condensed a little because another thing I keep in mind is that my academic institution made it mandatory to have quotes, two sentences or more long, in a new paragraph. You could even use own of those quote templates Wikipedia provides, if you want, but it is up to you though. Other than that, it is fine.- Jack ^(Talk) 01:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All the "citation needed"s

I presume it would be acceptable to cite the game itself for many of the areas that are marked for citation, namely map, damage and police system details. Am I correct? I say so because other notable video game articles like Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Call of Duty: World at War frequently cite the game itself for details that cannot be verified in any way other than playing the game.Splew (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just silly. There are "citation needed" for almost every line of the article. This is an overuse of the template as you can't request a citation for everything. I mean, one for "The games environment consists of four boroughs, called Palm Harbor, Port Crescent, Gold Coast Mountains, and Sunset Hills."? If you have to request one for that, you have to request one for everything said in every article of Wikipedia. Seriously. Whoever added all those "cn" can't be serious. -- Lyverbe (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not too bad. It's simple though, for most of those all that needs to be done is quote the game itself, like in the Call of Duty: World at War page. On many of the specific game details they just quoted the game.Splew (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was able to fill in about half of the "citation needed"s by just citing the game the same way they did in the COD:WaW page.Splew (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything needs a reference, even Wikipedia says: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Without a reference I could write whatever I liked. Therefore, if Wikipedia is to remain/become legitimate source of information it must always strive to provide Encyclopedic content from a third party source.- Jack ^(Talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Referencing the game, in a similar manner to the COD:WaW page is fine though right?Splew (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't believe in referencing the game as a source because the game doesn't provide written information and it can't be easily reviewed. Instead, it is based on the players experience in the game and their understanding of it, I hope you know what I mean. However, if COD:WaW does it and this practice of theirs has not been challenged then I think it should be fine, but if a reliable written source can be found please use that instead.- Jack ^(Talk) 04:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CoD 4 passed FA, so I think it's okay. It's a good idea to use it for the plot, but try not to add a POV. Just try to stick to the main things that happen. It's more likely that gamers have different opinions about the little things. Make sure that the console you're playing the game doesn't have a different plot etc compared to other consoles. If it is, then use a third party source to explain the differences. Since my expansion on the plot of CoD 5, large numbers of people have edited it. I have now removed it from my watchlist and given up checking every single edit. And yes, it is often their experience of what they think the game is showing them. Ironicaly, there were very few edits to the story section when it was just a small paragraph. Now that is looks so big, users feel confident about adding every little detail showed in the game. A few tips for writing from a video game as your reference is to not use the words "many", "lots" or "a lot", as this is your own opinion. The word "some" should never be used. Jolly Ω Janner 19:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the difference between Call of Duty: World at War "A character can be positioned in one of three stances: standing, crouching, or prone; each affecting the character's rate of movement, accuracy, and stealth" (which has no ref) and NFS:Undercover "The games environment consists of four boroughs, called Palm Harbor, Port Crescent, Gold Coast Mountains, and Sunset Hills." (which requires a ref)? None; One talks about possible character positions and the other talks about available cities. I believe too much refs makes the article hard to read, what could indirectly be considered overlinking (refs are links). You can't request a ref for everything. -- Lyverbe (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, you can't possibly reference everything. But you must always try. However, in this case I have not looked thoroughly into COD:WAW and have instead only done work on NFS:U. Therefore, I can conclude that the COD:WAW example seems to me just to be general knowledge and logically almost all first person games would have that option, but if you consider the other example, I (as a reader and someone who hasn't played the game, which I haven't) did not know the names or even how many boroughs there were without that knowledge being provided and verified with a source. You understand what I'm getting at? Anyways, an encyclopedic article is not based solely on how it looks but the verifiable information it provides. Furthermore, most third party sources are links because they are the most accessible and as encylopedic document I believe there is absolutely nothing wrong in 'overlinking' (referencing). Instead, I believe overlinking occurs when there are two or more sources for the one piece of information for example: CEO Bob said, "Cutting staff to save costs."(Source 1)(Source 2) (Source 3) etc. Another example is when something is provided that is just general and should not be referenced, such as: "The reception of the game was generally negative" - If I have made the mistake of referencing something general please notify me as I probably wasn't concentrating/thinking. But hopefully you understand what I am getting at; I fondly believe that no one should add information unless they can prove what they say.- Jack ^(Talk) 23:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One ref per paragraph of the plot is okay, so long as you don't go into detail or mention "possibilities" etc i.e. something that isn't clearly and specificaly portrayed in the game. For such things, you should look for other sources of information. My GA had one inline citation per sentence, some of which had inline citations after commas within the sentence, but they were needed, because you can't always find one reference that covers a whole paragraph. If you want an article to pass GA, then you have to provide citations for everything. If you can cover one paragraph with one citation, then that's great, but if you can't then you must do one per sentence or whatever. Jolly Ω Janner 23:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with that. In other words, one reference per paragraph (if too many are making the article "ugly") making sure that all information in the paragraph pertains to the reference, and a reference for every sentence of different/additional information as needed.- Jack ^(Talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep :) Jolly Ω Janner 00:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree too. We take CoD as an example, but we can any article (FA or not) and we'll see that the great majority of them don't have that much "cn"/"ref". To me, a "cn" is for something that can be doubtful and requires a proof. I'll have to take time and read the template description to better understand its purpose. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a citation in every space that said "citation needed" in the map section. Now I think it looks too cluttered. There is a citation after almost every single sentance. Does anyone else think that maybe the citations can be reduced?Splew (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Spew, not to be mean, I believe if you had cared to look a few paragraphs above you would have seen the following consensus:

"...one reference per paragraph (if too many are making the article "ugly") making sure that all information in the paragraph pertains to the reference, and a reference for every sentence of different/additional information as needed."- Jack ^(Talk) 03:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks messy, but not because of the inline citations. The citation needed tags distract the reader from the article. They should ussualy only be placed where specific figures are used for example "It sold five million copies in its first year, more any other game". It might also be used in extremely well referenced articles that just have two or three unreferenced statements. You might as well remove them, but remember that if you want it to pass GA, they will need to be replaced with actual inline citations. Jolly Ω Janner 16:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

To Jack, I did read what other people posted here, and I understand the rational behind having all the citations. I was merely voicing my opinion that it looks a bit cluttered with a citation after nearly every sentence, but if that's what is required to improve the article I'm fine with it.:) Splew (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay Spew, my mistake. Sorry about that, I must have misunderstood what you were saying. Anyways, now that a consensus has been reached I guess this topic is closed.- Jack ^(Talk) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The citation needed tags are still there though. Jolly Ω Janner 23:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha indeed they are. Well until someone can be "bothered" implementing what we have decided on then I guess they will stay there.- Jack ^(Talk) 23:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I sure can't be bothered. Jolly Ω Janner 23:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Me either. I guess Splew can do it :P.- Jack ^(Talk) 23:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh great. Lets throw dozens of "cn" everywhere and leave them like that. Whoever decided to add all those "cn" (was it you Stealth?) should take the job to fill them up. I know, it's a team effort and I agree that we can all do it, but nobody wants to take such a task when there are so many. I really hate the way the article looks now. Really. I think it's logical to say that the reference section shouldn't be as big as the article. -- Lyverbe (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't the reference section be as big as the article? There certainly is nothing wrong with that. At the worst, it just makes it more verifiable. By the way, if you have such a hate for the article's look maybe you should do it cause to me that is logical. However, if you ask me nicely I will fix the entire article at the expense of my time.- Jack ^(Talk) 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask you nicely?! This isn't a question of saying "Please", it's a team effort. I'll do better than that: I'll unwatch the article. Enjoy editing it. I'm out. -- Lyverbe (talk) 11:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This argument seems rather bizarre, as WP:V is policy. The citations are required. That they're not in other articles as much as they should be isn't a satisfactory reason to refuse to have them here.  Xihr  06:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Can you explain what you mean in some more detail please?- Jack ^(Talk) 07:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're looking for. What is confusing about WP:V? (Click on the link and read the policy.)  Xihr  07:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the policy except people have been arguing against it: it makes the article "ugly"; it wasn't "appropriate" etc. So someone gave an idea/opinion and people agreed with it, now it is just a matter of implementing it. Don't get me wrong I'm all for WP:V, but you should address the points people made earlier directly so all relevant people have a better idea what they are doing wrong and what policy is.- Jack ^(Talk) 07:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, to be clear, I was responding to the dispute in general, not specifically your final comment there. Those that are discontented with current citation policy should take it up on that talk page, not here.  Xihr  08:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I guess the article will stay as it is then.- Jack ^(Talk) 08:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been able to find sources for some of the development section things that needed citation, I just haven't gotten around to filling them in yet. As for the customization section, I haven't found anything to back it up, It's as though the whole thing was just made up. Splew (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the part saying that Undercover "has the largest open world map that EA has ever created". I've not seen any sources saying that and it can't be verified by game experience, so I think there is no way to verify it.Splew (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the customization section, it might be made up so I suggest it is removed completely. But I do remember reading a source that mentioned how Undercover "has the largest open world map that EA has ever created". I can't remember the source though but do try a few sites and do a Ctrl Find to see if anything turns up. Remember to finish referencing the new sources you have provided because I site's address isn't suitable enough. Anyways, keep up the good work so far; I'll continue to help when I have time.- Jack ^(Talk) 03:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

WE CAN"T SEE IT!!!

Can we have more images, please??

well add it MaxFinkerBerg1945-2018 (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Need for Speed: Undercover/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Good article criteria

1. Well-written:

(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

(c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Comments

• The lead is far too short. Per WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." There is no mention of the development of the game in the lead, none of the plot, nor of reception for the game. Additionally, platforms should be alphabetized and all references should be moved out of the lead and into the body (where possible) per WP:LEADCITE.
• There are redlinks to things that could easily be wikilinked, such as police vehicles and Lamborgini Gallardo (which should be Lamborghini Gallardo)
• References should appear after punctuation, and if it's sufficient to use the reference once for the whole sentence, do so. There are a few instances where a ref is used twice in a sentence and it's not necessary. For instance, the third paragraph in the Gameplay section needs only one reference at the end of the paragraph.
• The NFS title "ProStreet" should be wikilinked to the game the first time its mentioned
• Multiple paragraphs are over 6-7 lines long. Consider breaking these paragraphs into two so that the reader is not overwhelmed.
• Some paragraphs are only one or two lines long. These should be merged with another appropriate paragraph.
• Reference #28 is a dead link
• There are several disambig links
• Reference #13 needs formatting using Template:cite web
• Reference #8 should be linking to the actual review, and should mention both the author and the review date
• Reference dates should have a consistent format. Use either "September 13, 2008" or "2008-09-13", but not both
• The "Extras" section is completely unnecessary
• The Reception section makes no mention of aggregate scores in the prose, and is not organized. Please see articles such as Halo 3: ODST and The Beatles: Rock Band for how to format the Reception section. Additionally the final review in the template to the right does not need both 10/10 and the the star images, use one or the other, and move the reference to the right column to follow suit with the others.
• "NFS" is ambiguous, and folks who don't play Need For Speed won't know what that means. Spell it out please
• The rationale for the image File:Needforspeedundercoverporsche911gt3.jpg needs to be updated using current templates and expanded information (see File:Tbrb gamescreen.jpg)
• Crop the image File:Nfsuc-win-cover.jpg to get rid of the "PC" logo at the top so that it is not platform dependent
• Things in the infobox (such as platforms, input methods and media) should be alphabetized
• Alt text should be added to both the cover image and gameplay image
• Consider moving the gameplay image to the left side of the Development section
• References should wikilink the publisher (for instance GameTrailers) on the first reference in the section (when there is an article to link to)
• There are multiple areas of the Gameplay section that have text in parenthesis. Most of these are not necessary for a reader who has not played the game, and if they are they need to be integrated into the prose.
• The prose is in need of a full copy edit. Consider taking the article to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review

Unfortunately I have to Quick-Fail this article. However given some updates feel free to renominate it.

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

New Poster

I have uploaded the new version of the file, as the existing lacks the EA logo at the bottom. The new image is from the website http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2833552640/tt1264900. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kskhh (talk • contribs) 12:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Need for Speed: Undercover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219205835/http://www.nfsundercover.org/ea-need-for-speed-undercover-11/ to http://www.nfsundercover.org/ea-need-for-speed-undercover-11/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928225943/http://speedhunters.com/archive/2008/09/26/car-feature-gt-gt-need-for-speed-undercover-cover-car.aspx to http://speedhunters.com/archive/2008/09/26/car-feature-gt-gt-need-for-speed-undercover-cover-car.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Know

Name's members Marmalaad (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Promotional content

EA created a web site to promote Undercover, https://whicroadtotake.com, which can still be accessed via internet archive, but won't work due to requiring flash player. It showed an interrogation room, and clicking on objects in the room would bring up videos that included characters from the game. Rcgldr (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

EA also made a series of videos called Take Down, also promoting Undercover. It's since been combined into a single video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QY0rOZK5UlA Rcgldr (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

On the game DVD, there's a promotional video for the Nissan 370Z: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6eMXceuj-8 Rcgldr (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)