Talk:Wheels of Aurelia/GA4

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Lee Vilenski in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs) 23:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Lede

edit

Gameplay and Premise

edit
  • Whilst Lella and Olga's reasons for leaving Italy are initially unknown.[8] they want to leave for different reasons; Lella is attempting to re-convene with her former kidnapper and Olga is attempting to get to France to have an abortion.
    ^These two sentences are a bit awkward to read together. I recommend revising.
  • The gameplay and premise are intertwined, which makes it harder to verify what sources are covering what. I may recommend you add in references for the plot just for the purpose of helping to distinguish what sources are covering what. Either that or separate Premise and Gameplay if possible.
  • When the characters reach new locations, a cutscene with the characters placed over a postcard of the area will play. The player can visit Rome, Civitavecchia, Bracciano, Piombino, Siena and Viareggio during the trip, but may visit a limited range of locations per playthrough. The player may change Lella's travel companions, dump hitchhikers, and change the vehicle Lella is driving at these locations, based on the player's choice of dialogue.
    ^This information isn't sourced.
  • The game is set in an Italian sports car, and drive the motorway Via Aurelia.
    ^The way this is worded is odd. Can you clarify?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
    Reply
  • Now that I had more time reviewing. A lot of the information on the gameplay and premise is redundant. The gameplay can be significantly shorter. Looking back, i don't think this is much of a synopsis and more of a premise.

Development and release

edit
  • IMHO, it's not necessary to mention that the information came from an interview or the use of "according to the developers". Can be revised to be more straight-forward.
  • The Humble Bundle beta release should be in the same paragraph as the release history.
  • Based on the sources used, I don't see the developers describing their own dialogue system as unique. I do see mentions of interviewers posing questions with the term unique in there, but I don't see it warranted in the article.
  • I see Wheels of Aurelia are abbreviated to just Wheels. I noticed only one source abbreviating it to just "Wheels" so far. It's better to not abbreviate it so it doesn't cause confusion. If more sources found, mention that its sometimes abbreviated as Wheels somewhere in the article.
  • I don't see any mention of "Out Run" mentioned at all in the reference used for it. In addition, i don't think it should be reworded so it isn't so factual if the source is found for that.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • The sources used make no mentions of "Commedia all'italiana" anywhere on the interviews. is there any source out there that mentions it explicitly?
  • There are some quotes that don't seem as important or can be reduced to simple sentences. I attempted to assist in reducing the quotes, but they can be reduced further. There is more vital information in the Gamasutra source that gives a better idea of the development of the game. Information such as how they chose to rush the development, didn't achieve what they wanted with the driving mechanics, and much more. What Riva claims is an inspiration to the game is good but its not the most vital part of the development and should be revised to being more concise. If need be, you can move one of his quotes into it using template:Quote box. Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reception

edit
  • I don't see Switch Player being a valid reviewer in WP:VG/RS. I'm willing to consider them reliable for news and interviews in this case, but perhaps find another reviewer to replace. I noticed Pocket Gamer and Touch Arcade have reviews available.
  • will add more information soon.
  • There is a quote in almost every sentence. I assisted in reducing the amount, but I think it should be reduced further.

Overall

edit
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

I'll start on the review as soon as I have more time opened up. I haven't had a lot of time latelyBlue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

This definitely has more potential. I'm feeling good about this article and think it needs an additional week of ironing out the kinks.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
after reviewing these article extensively, i am happy to report that its a Pass. Thank you for your hard work.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, thank you for your time and fantastic review! A little bit of backstory, this article was one of the first article I ever created from scratch, and I put so much CRUFT into it I didn't really know what I was doing. It's been on my to-do list to fix for a long time, but I'm not super familiar with the GA Criteria in VG articles. Your review made the article significantly better, so thank you for picking it up. If you have an article for review at any time, I'll let me know and I'll pick it up. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply