Talk:Trials HD

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   The prose needs polishing. Below are some example as guidance to find similar issues in the whole article.

   • Gameplay: Some areas describe the player's actions, but it is the player character that performs the actions. For example:
     • "the player rides a physics-based motorcycle" → "the player controls a rider on a physics-based motorcycle"
     • "the player can only move forwards and backwards" → "the rider can only move forwards and backwards"
   • Development: Some areas can be trimmed to be more concise and direct. For example:
     • "Doing so was seen by RedLynx as" → "RedLynx saw this as"
     • "level editor that players can use to make user-based content" → "level editor that allows players to make user-based content"
     • The first mention of "Trials HD Big Thrills Pack" uses "will" for a future tense, but later states that the content was released, requiring a present tense.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The numbers in the reception section need to be consistent per MOS:NUM. Basically there is "three hundred thousand", "1.3 million", and "368,000". For consistency's sake, I suggest using "0.30 million" "1.30 million", "0.36 million", and "0.09 million" to maintain scale. Don't forgot about a non-breaking space between the number and word.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   What makes the following sources reliable?

   • funflashgames.com
     • Replaced with a primary source. Developer's official website shows a list of games which verify its roots. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
   • console-arcade.com
     • Removed and trimmed. Not entirely necessary to know when they announced it I guess. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   Not a big deal but the 1UP.com link redirects to an updated url. It would be best to use the new address in the ref.

   C. No original research:

   The statement about based on the flash games is not it the reference given. A reasonable conclusion, but best to simply state that the developer created other games in flash prior to this game.

   • Replaced per the funflashgames.com comment above. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

   In the Reception section, attribute the leaderboard comment to the author.

   • Fixed. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

   The FUR for File:TrialsHDscreenshot.png and File:TrialsHD levelEditor.png are rather sparse. The descriptions and purpose of uses should be expanded.

   • Expanded the purposes for both of these. --Teancum (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
     • I would expand the description as well. Basically assume that a reader may click on the image for information. So something at least as descriptive as a caption should be there. The beauty is that you're not as restricted on space like you would be in an article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC))
       • Done. --Teancum (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold pending article revisions

I did an initial sweep, and will finish the review hopefully tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC))

Finished my review. The article is in good shape. Once the above issues are addressed, I'll pass the article. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC))

Finished everything but what's in point 2. Still working on that. --Teancum (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Finished updating the article. --Teancum (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Second look

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

   Not an issue, but I recommend that you add Alt text to the images.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   My concerns have been addressed and I think the article meets the criteria. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

Sequel?

Is this the sequel to Trials 2 or vice versa? Or neither? This game came out later but the other has a "2" in it. I'm not sure if it's is called Trials 2 as a joke or if it really is a sequel to this. --170.28.224.10 (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Trials HD is the third in the series. The first Trials game was a flash game, then game Trials 2 on PC, then Trials HD on Xbox 360, then Trials Evolution on the 360. Now HD and Evolution are coming to PC. This should clear up the confusion (second video). I should probably think about creating a series article. --Teancum (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Trials HD. 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/20100211140603/http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/2459/Trials-HD-Developer-Interview/p1/ to http://interviews.teamxbox.com/xbox/2459/Trials-HD-Developer-Interview/p1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101010080746/http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/2385/Trials-HD/p1/ to http://previews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/2385/Trials-HD/p1/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110208100159/https://microsoft.promo.eprize.com/trialshd/ to https://microsoft.promo.eprize.com/trialshd/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100918065519/http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/112/1120887p1.html to http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/112/1120887p1.html

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) 08:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)