Talk:Time Trax (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 14:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Look for more comments within the week. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Lead
• The first sentence is important, and tries to cram too much in. I suggest deciding on either THQ or Malibu Games, and explaining the relationship between those brands later in the lead. (You seem to explain Malibu Interactive in the second paragraph, which is a good way to handle it.)

 Done -- I decided to alter that part of the lead by naming Malibu Games in the lead. I'll explain what Malibu Games is in the development section. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• "It follows police captain Darien Lambert, joined by the Specified Encapsulated Limitless Memory Archive (S.E.L.M.A.) supercomputer, traveling back in time to capture commander Sepp Dietrich and doctor Mordecai Sahmbi, who has sent crimial fugitives back in time to assist him in his plan of changing history and gain control of the future." -> "The story follows police Captain Lambert as he tries to stop criminal fugitives from changing history and gaining control of the future, with aid from his supercomputer assistant." (The lead doesn't need this much detail, but if you really insist, it should be broken into multiple sentences.)

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The player can also stall time to slow down speed and use martial arts on combat against enemies." -> "The player can also use martial arts to defeat enemies, or use a time ability to slow them down."

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• "on SNES" -> drop this, since you already said it.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• The first sentence of the second paragraph also tries to say too much, and loses clarity. Either shorten it, or split it into two sentences.

 Done -- I try to make the second paragraph shorter. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Gameplay

• "The plot follows..." -> this is a mouthful and should be split into multiple sentences. if it becomes long enough, it might even warrant a section. But two or three sentences seems the right amount.

 Done -- I tried to make the first paragraph of the gameplay section shorter based on the suggestions you listed in the lead section of this review. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• "that take place in various locations" -> this is implied and can be dropped

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• " which is capable of stunning enemies for a brief time period and shoot pellets that render them transportable to the future" -> "which can be used to stun enemies, or shoot pellets that transport them back to the future."

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The player can also stall time to slow down speed and use martial arts on hand-to-hand combat against enemies." -> "The player can also use martial arts to defeat enemies, or use a time ability to slow them down"

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Development
• Move the first sentence about publishing to later. Start with the development, and explain the publishing and release later.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Same comment about Malibu Interactive as in the lead above -- try to split this into multiple, shorter sentences for readability.

 Done -- More or less (hopefully!). Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• " In 1993, a Sega Genesis version of Time Trax was announced alongside the SNES version at the Consumer Electronics Show of that year and slated for launch between January and April of 1994" -> "Time Trax was announced for both the SNES and Sega Genesis at the 1993 Consumer Electronics Show, with a release date at in early 1994."

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• This is probably a good place to move the publishing of the Super Nintendo version -- the first sentence of the section.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• "It was set to be published by THQ" -> "The Sega Genesis version"

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• " and despite" -> ". Despite" (use a full stop here, to keep different ideas organized.)

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The most notable difference of the Genesis version is its soundtrack," -> "The Genesis version was distinguished by its soundtrack,"

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Reception
• In general, this section doesn't feel organized. There are some ways to organize paragraphs by subtopic, for example positive reviews, mixed reviews, and negative reviews. Even just the mention of passwords and continues could be grouped together, instead of bringing it up at different points in different paragraphs.

To be frankly honest the reception section might be the section where i still have problems whe making/reworking articles, particularly that part of condensing positive, mixed, and negative comments by the reviewers. That is the main reason why i break their points on different paragraphs. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• " concurred with GameFan on most points, " -> be careful with things like this, because if they didn't explicitly mention GameFan, then this gets into WP:SYNTH. It also doesn't make sense, since you follow with some mention of passwords and continues, which means that they are explicitly talking about something different.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• " Consoles +' Richard Homsy and Nicolas Gavet agreed with Lundrian, commending" -> "Richard Homsy and Nicolas Gavet of Consoles + commended"

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• " expressed similar thoughts as other reviewers, " -> I'd also drop this as unnecessary, and bordering on WP:SYNTH.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• " agreed with De Steene" -> same with this

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• The Computer and Video Games quote would probably flow better if it was summarized in ordinary prose.

I decided to integrate the CVG reference + two other review references into the first line of the first paragraph "garnered generally favorable reviews from critics". Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a good first pass. We'l probably need a second pass, particularly on the reception section, which needs a stronger organization and flow. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker:Okay, i managed to do the first pass so i'll wait for additional comments. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your revisions. I think we can probably get this to GA with one more pass, if not very close.

• "with former Ocean Software and Software Creations staff." -> "with former staff from Ocean Software and Software Creations"

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The game garnered generally favorable reception..." -> "The game garnered a generally favorable reception..."

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• "The plot follows police Captain Lambert, with aid from his supercomputer assistant S.E.L.M.A., traveling back in time using the Trax machine to capture commander Sepp Dietrich and doctor Mordecai Sahmbi, who has sent crimial fugitives back in time to assist him in his plan of changing history and gain control of the future" -> this is a long sentence that should probably be organized into two shorter sentences, maybe even three.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• " in order to confront Dietrich and Sahmbi, while apprehending crimial fugitives sent back in time" -> this probably fits more nicely with the last paragraph, where you introduce the plot

 Done -- Re-did the second paragraph of the gameplay section... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

• The reception is better overall, but still feels hard to read in terms of its organization. It jumps between many elements of the game, and sometimes becomes critical before becoming more positive again. Let's try to dig in on this, organizing it into positive, mixed, and critical reviews.
  • Pull out the positive reviews and load them to the front. That's Video Games, Games World, Official Nintendo Magazine, and GamePro. (Which also lines up with their review scores.)
  • Make the second paragraph a mixed reception section.
  • Pull out the two reviews that were critical of the music, but otherwise positive. GamesFan and Player One. This is maybe a good place to start transitioning into "mixed" reviews. (But don't overstate it, considering both these reviewers gave positive ratings overall.)
  • Pull out the statements where several reviewers criticized the lack of continues, and ending the game after three lives. That's Consoles+, Joypad, and Game Players. (e.g.: "Several reviewers criticized the difficulty of the game due to the lack of continue system, while praising other aspects of the game. 1. 2. 3.") Finish with Gameplayers, since that will help with the transition and flow into the more critical reviews, coming next.
  • End with more mixed-to-critical reviews. Super Control, Nintendo Acción, Total, and GamesMaster.
  • Superjuegos is tricky, since the summary comes across as mixed, but the actual review was quite positive. Double check this one and make sure you're representing its opinion with appropriate WP:WEIGHT on each aspect.
  • This isn't to demand this is the only way to organize it. Other articles sometimes organize by different elements (e.g.: gameplay paragraph, audiovisual paragraph, story paragraph). But positive/mixed/critical is the quickest and easiest solution, in my opinion.

 Done -- I revamped the reception section based on your recommendation. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This should get us all the way there, if not very close. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker:Done with the second pass. Let me know for additional details waiting to be addressed! Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Just a few more details to wrap up.

• On the lead, maybe come up with a better summary of the reception section. That should be easier now that it's easier to see how the reception is sorted.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "highlighted its use of the SNES' hardware in a positive manner" -> "celebrated its technical use of the Super Nintendo hardware."

 Done -- Change applied. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "longevity" -> this is a little confusing without more context. Would replayability be a better word?

 Done -- Change applied. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• " though they felt the music could have been better" -> "while criticizing the music"

 Done -- Change applied. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• "cited the lackluster enemy sprites and small number of weapons as shortcomings -> "disapproved of the enemy sprites and the limited number of weapons."

 Done -- Change applied. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

• " Joypad's Olivier Prézeau and Nini Nourdine praised the varied graphics, smooth scrolling, controls, and sound. Nevertheless, both Prézeau and Nourdine saw the lack of continues as a negative aspect" -> "Joypad's Olivier Prézeau and Nini Nourdine also criticized the lack of continue system, while reserving praise for the graphics, sound, controls, and smooth scrolling."

 Done -- Change applied. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Those are the last few things. Thanks for your patience and great work. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker:That should be it more or less, right? Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is officially GA quality. Thanks for your work on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Shooterwalker:You're welcome and thank you for taking the time to review the article! Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)