Talk:Wipeout 2048/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 02:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Freikorp (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   "however its long loading times and minor technical issues were criticised" - think this would be better as "however its long loading times were criticized, as were some minor technical issues"

   Changed. JAGUAR  11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   "It is set in the near future" - this seems redundant as two sentences later the actual years it is set in are specified.

   Reworded. JAGUAR  11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   "The game also featured downloadable content (DLC); namely the HD/Fury DLC," - this would seem better placed along with 'release' info, rather than in the gameplay section.

   I've never seen the DLC mentioned outside the gameplay section? I think it's more relevant to gameplay as the development and release subsections strictly talks about the game's design etc. I'm not too sure about this... JAGUAR  11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   "(formerly known as Psygnosis)" - does this need to be in brackets? I think ti would be better as standard prose.

   Removed brackets. JAGUAR  11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   "stated that it was something Studio Liverpool had done before" - are you able to specify what title they did it with before? That would be interesting.

   The source doesn't specify this :( JAGUAR  11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   'Release and subsequent closure of Studio Liverpool' - this section seems slightly off topic; I think it only belongs at the article for Studio Liverpool. Unless this game's development somehow affected the studio's closure, I don't see why this should be mentioned outside of one sentence mentioning that it was the last game developed before their closure.

   Since I might take this to FAC, I think it would be worth mentioning that this game was the last to be released by the prestigious studio, but the subsection does seem a bit awkward, you're right. I've cut it down slightly and removed the section. Hope this is OK. JAGUAR  11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   I will note that the Reception section goes into much more detail than is typical for a gaming article. It's certainly better than not enough info, but that being said I've never really seen over-detail to this extent ever before, so I'm not sure what to say about it. For starters, can you explain to me why you've decided to make the section so long?

   I think I got carried away! I admit I've never seen a reception section this long before, and since I will most likely take this to FAC in the future I would have ended up condensing it anyway. I've merged various sentences together to give the section a more compact feel, and tried organising the section so it reads like cohesive prose rather than an arbitrary list of reviewers themselves. JAGUAR  11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   Conversely there's a complete absence of 'Release' info in the release section other than the first sentence, which doesn't actually tell us anything we haven't been told already. You need to expand this sub-section with relevant information. For starters you can move the DLC info to down here.

   I've removed the release subection and I'm not too sure about moving the DLC info to that section as I've never seen it done before. Do you think I should do it? JAGUAR  11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   As indicated by article history and talk page

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   File:Wipeout 2048 gameplay.jpg has a tag. Please remove it if the issue has been addressed or address it now.

   Removed. JAGUAR  11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Placing this one on hold while I wait for responses. Freikorp (talk) 11:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Freikorp: thanks for the review! And sorry for the delay in getting to this—been very distracted and busy in RL. I should have all of the issues addressed. I will most likely take this to FAC within the foreseeable future, and I recognise that I might have to cut some content from the reception section regardless. The only thing I didn't address is moving the DLC into the release subsection. I removed the subsection altogether when I realised that the bit about Studio Liverpool's closure seemed redundant. I'll move the DLC info from the gameplay section, if you think it's best. Thanks again for reviewing! JAGUAR  11:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Happy for this to pass now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)