Talk:Star Wars: Rogue Squadron/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • Prose seems well written with correct grammar and spelling.

   B. MoS compliance:

3. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   • Thought I saw some issues with unsourced facts but after digging they are sourced later in the article.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   • All online sources checkout, offline sources accepted on good faith

   C. No original research:

5. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   • Covers all aspects I can think of in good detail.

   B. Focused:

   • Don't understand this point =/ second opinion needed (and a little pointer)

6. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   • On hold as per Sabre's comments below. Also, a number of other sections seem to omit details about the PC version. Like development but mainly reception and sales

   • I have restructured and added to the lead to further included the PC version. The development section really needs no addition, as the versions were developed simultaneously by the same teams. I will be adding a paragraph to "Reception" about the PC's reviews ASAP! --Torsodog^Talk 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • I have added a paragraph about the PC specific reviews as well as clarified some other little things about the different versions throughout the article. I believe this is substantial enough, but any opinions would be welcome! --Torsodog^Talk 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Looks much better now, good effort. Changing to PASS :) Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

7. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   • Seems to be a bit of back and forth about whether the Japanese name should be included between EEMIV and Torsodog. Personally I think it should have the japanese name in just as Torsodog had it.

   • No war, simply a misunderstanding. The matter was discussed at further length here, and it was concluded by Project members that the Japanese name should not be included. --Torsodog^Talk 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Fair enough. Article stable. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

8. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   • Good amount of relevant images that add value to the article. Screenshots all relevant to the sections they are placed in.

9. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   • On hold until the issues detailed are addressed and until another reviewer has a look to make sure I've not overlooked anything.

   • Issues raised have been dealt with and this article now looks like GA class to me. I'm hesitant to pass it though until another editor takes a quick glance at the review to check it over first. If another reviewer does add a second opinion I would like to request they still allow me to pass the article and update everything. All I'm looking for is a little critique and a go ahead nod Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • After having a second opinion by Sabre I am pleased to pass this article as a Good Article Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for jumping in (the GA review tag on the nomination list says "additional comments are welcome" after all), I was going to review this but I see that Cabe6403's beaten me to it and is in the process of that right now. Whether Cabe6403 is going to pick up on this I don't know, but I'm going to mention it anyway. The first paragraph of the lead section seems a bit biased in favour of the N64 version in my view, which seems particularly odd given that the PC version was released first. I'd like to see that made a bit more balanced, treating it more as a con-current release rather than as if the PC version came a few months later. Something along these lines would be more balanced, not giving preference to either version:

Star Wars: Rogue Squadron is an action arcade-style shooter game co-developed by Factor 5 and LucasArts and published by LucasArts for the Nintendo 64 and personal computer. The first of three games in the Rogue Squadron series, it was released for PC on December 2, 1998, and on Nintendo 64 five days later. The Nintendo 64 version was one of the first games to take advantage of the console's Expansion Pak, which allows players to play the game with a 640x480 resolution display instead of the standard 320x240 resolution. Rogue Squadron's sales exceeded expectations; over 1.5 million copies sold worldwide.

Same goes with the infobox, the earlier PC release date is hidden behind a dropdown area displaying the N64 version, when with only three dates in it there is no need to hide any of them. I realise the later games in the series were not released for PC, but that's no reason to discriminate against the PC version here. -- Sabre (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Sabre, you're right, I didn't notice that. This is my first GA review so I was going to go through it best I can then ask for a second opinion. If you'd like to assist me in this matter I'd greatly appreciate it Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's my second opinion review:

• Prose is fine, the wikilinks help explain the in-universe stuff and the real-world stuff is reasonable. Try to be consistent with use of ship names though, for example, you've got "TIE fighter" and "TIE Fighter" in use, the article on them uses "TIE fighter" so it would probably be prudent to ditch the capitalisation in favour of consistency with other articles.
• If there's any available sales information for the PC, add it, but if not don't worry.
  • I've looked, but I can't find anything. I'll continue to look though. The problem is that the PC version is not popular at all, while the N64 version sold a couple million copies. No one cares about the PC version :/ --Torsodog^Talk 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Images: there's problems here. If this gets taken to FA, its liable to get torn apart on its images, the rationales are very weak. I would say that there is at least one too many images here against the non-free content criteria. The size of the screenshots was also too large for fair use, and Guest9999 has reduced them.
  • The rationale for File:Rogue Squadron Crawl.JPG puts it as an entirely decorative image, it doesn't accompany any commentary in the article and the scrolling text is a common feature in all but one Star Wars game I know, so it doesn't have any real value against the NFCC (points 3a and 8). Thus, I've removed it.
  • File:Rogue squadron naboo.JPG has a very weak fair use rationale, stating that the purpose of use is seemingly decorative. FA reviewers will be quick to denounce this image with its current rationale, I'll fix it up. I've also got rid of the black bits in the image, they serve no purpose.
  • The other rationales are reasonable, but could use some tweaking to appear more substantial.
  • Multiplatform games should have platform neutral box art in the infobox it possible to get one or create one, as per guidelines and template documentation. The two box arts aren't majorly different, I've uploaded a platform neutral one.
    • Images are always a problem for me. I uploaded what I thought would be interesting/helpful screens to have in the article with the hopes that they would either be fine or someone would help me out with them. Looks like you were the lucky user that go to help me out! Thanks so much! --Torsodog^Talk 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've dealt with all the problems I can see, which wasn't much. Its a very well put together article, good work. -- Sabre (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and support! --Torsodog^Talk 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)