Talk:Tux Racer/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs) 18:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I decided to review this article. The lead doesn't accurately present information from the article. This article is trying to separate the free version from the commercial version, which in my humble opinion makes it confusing to read. Instead, the commercial version should be considered an extension of the original free version and simply treat it as a second release. This means removing the second infobox and merging the commercial version's section with the development. However The Legacy section is made up of revisions and ports, so it might be best to create a "Release Section" or "Ports and Remakes" section for all the alternate versions. So that's another option. There is no release date for the free source one in the infobox or in the article, even a year would be ok to put in the infobox.
I will continue to review the article to see if these sources are reliable and if there is any odd word-choice.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- I advised previously that the second infobox isn't necessary and should be removed but that hasn't been addressed. So i'll request for a second opinion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was not sure what to think of it. When I submitted this article for GA, it was my intention to disambiguate the two important versions of the game (the open-source and the commercial ones), but when you brought it up on Thursday that the article should mostly focus on the free version, I was initially reluctant. However, when I thought about it, it somewhat made sense, as reception of the game was entirely about Tux Racer and, to a lesser extent, its forks, and I had not found a single critic review ever about the commercialized expansion. A few notes I would like to point out, though: 1. The photograph of the arcade cabinet comes from Flickr. Both that photograph and the file here were uploaded under the CC BY-SA license, and someone on Wikimedia Commons has yet to confirm that the license is correct. 2. One of the references used for the article appears to be a 2000s fansite for the (then-)popular computer game, and I would normally consider such sources to be unreliable. However, that particular source being used cites a transcript of an interview between the website and Jasmin Patry, the game's creator. The one thing about the purported interview is that I have little reason to suspect that it was forged. Oddly, there is no date of the interview or who the particular interviewer (if other than the website as a whole) was, but I have a reason to believe that Sunspire Studios was one of those companies that would reach out to fansites and give such interviews. They were not all famous, and the interview does appear to match with their earlier one, a source I can definitely trust. I could remove the second infobox if it really is unneeded, but personally I am curious in whether to categorize this article as "2000 video games" (the year of the open-source game) or "2002 video games" (the year of the commercial version).
Gamingforfun365 21:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)- @Gamingforfun365: Sorry for the delay. It's best not to use that source since its difficult to verify who they were interviewing and what time. The commercial 2002 version should be treated as an extension of the original. I think it should be categorized as a "2000 video game". Unless there's enough evidence to prove that the commercial version has no connection with the original Tux Racer or without any permissions/approval. If I recall correctly, the arcade version is also a commercial version too. If that is the case, it would be best not to separate "commercial" version and just merge it with "Ports and remakes".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- In addition, I noticed you created a video. I'm not against them, but I don't see a huge benefit of replacing the image. Luckily this is free content so either one can work. For the best of both worlds, would it be preferable to have a .gif image instead? This won't have any impact on the GA. If you prefer video then thats fine.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I decided to remove the second infobox as requested, though I wondered whether we should put the commercial cover art at the top of the article or just leave it out. I also removed that second interview (which was mostly a duplicate of the earlier Imprint interview), as well as the unverified claim of the commercial game being announced in August 2000 (most likely meant 2001) and the trivial fact that Tux Racer appeared on the January 2001 PC Gamer issue (I think it's actually for the February 2001 issue, but that is not important anyway).
Gamingforfun365 03:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)- As for the video, I feel that it is better than a screenshot. I produced the video illustrating the gameplay of Tux Racer because the game is free software and a video can illustrate parts of the game (e.g. physics, mechanics) that a screenshot alone cannot. A GIF would work, but it's sometimes distracting when I am reading the text instead of the image. All of this is just my personal opinion, so I suppose it does not really matter how we illustrate the game as long as everyone is satisfied.
Gamingforfun365 03:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)- I won't really fight over the video since its free content. I attempted to simplify the Gameplay but I'm not sure I 100% understand the differences between Event and Cups. The manual is also littered with grammatical errors. I'll attempt to email the developers and see if they're willing to revise their manual and make it easier to understand. If you played the game, and understand what the developer was meant to say, please see if you can revise the gameplay but also choose direct and easy to understand dialogue. I'm tempted to say "par time" is jargon.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 01:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- As for the video, I feel that it is better than a screenshot. I produced the video illustrating the gameplay of Tux Racer because the game is free software and a video can illustrate parts of the game (e.g. physics, mechanics) that a screenshot alone cannot. A GIF would work, but it's sometimes distracting when I am reading the text instead of the image. All of this is just my personal opinion, so I suppose it does not really matter how we illustrate the game as long as everyone is satisfied.
- I decided to remove the second infobox as requested, though I wondered whether we should put the commercial cover art at the top of the article or just leave it out. I also removed that second interview (which was mostly a duplicate of the earlier Imprint interview), as well as the unverified claim of the commercial game being announced in August 2000 (most likely meant 2001) and the trivial fact that Tux Racer appeared on the January 2001 PC Gamer issue (I think it's actually for the February 2001 issue, but that is not important anyway).
- In addition, I noticed you created a video. I'm not against them, but I don't see a huge benefit of replacing the image. Luckily this is free content so either one can work. For the best of both worlds, would it be preferable to have a .gif image instead? This won't have any impact on the GA. If you prefer video then thats fine.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Gamingforfun365: Sorry for the delay. It's best not to use that source since its difficult to verify who they were interviewing and what time. The commercial 2002 version should be treated as an extension of the original. I think it should be categorized as a "2000 video game". Unless there's enough evidence to prove that the commercial version has no connection with the original Tux Racer or without any permissions/approval. If I recall correctly, the arcade version is also a commercial version too. If that is the case, it would be best not to separate "commercial" version and just merge it with "Ports and remakes".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was not sure what to think of it. When I submitted this article for GA, it was my intention to disambiguate the two important versions of the game (the open-source and the commercial ones), but when you brought it up on Thursday that the article should mostly focus on the free version, I was initially reluctant. However, when I thought about it, it somewhat made sense, as reception of the game was entirely about Tux Racer and, to a lesser extent, its forks, and I had not found a single critic review ever about the commercialized expansion. A few notes I would like to point out, though: 1. The photograph of the arcade cabinet comes from Flickr. Both that photograph and the file here were uploaded under the CC BY-SA license, and someone on Wikimedia Commons has yet to confirm that the license is correct. 2. One of the references used for the article appears to be a 2000s fansite for the (then-)popular computer game, and I would normally consider such sources to be unreliable. However, that particular source being used cites a transcript of an interview between the website and Jasmin Patry, the game's creator. The one thing about the purported interview is that I have little reason to suspect that it was forged. Oddly, there is no date of the interview or who the particular interviewer (if other than the website as a whole) was, but I have a reason to believe that Sunspire Studios was one of those companies that would reach out to fansites and give such interviews. They were not all famous, and the interview does appear to match with their earlier one, a source I can definitely trust. I could remove the second infobox if it really is unneeded, but personally I am curious in whether to categorize this article as "2000 video games" (the year of the open-source game) or "2002 video games" (the year of the commercial version).
- I advised previously that the second infobox isn't necessary and should be removed but that hasn't been addressed. So i'll request for a second opinion.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I decided that this article is GA worthy and gave it a pass. Sorry for the delay.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)