Talk:Daytona USA/GA1
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:Daytona USA (video game)/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Crimsonfox (talk · contribs) 08:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
In progress, will update with comments CrimsonFox talk 08:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Crimsonfox
[edit]Overall it reads well and appears to cover everything, few nit picks on wording and some refs need fixing per below
Refs
- #3 - No article date, name should be capitalised
- #12 - Article title shouldn't have site name in
- #18 - No article date (Optional: Not archived)
- #20 - Needs all details
- #21-23 - Remove site name from article name, no access date
- #22-23 - No author, need to be distinguished from each other (Eg. Daytona USA - Review (PC))
- #25-16 - Need formatting correctly
- #46 - Name of the site is not the URL
- #56 - No access date
- All refs fixed, except for #20. Not sure what you're looking for here. Red Phoenix talk 16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Gameplay
- The first sentence doesn't read very encyclopedia-like.
- "introduced the possibility of linking " - Be more certain in your wording (Eg. "Up to eight cabinets can be linked to...")
- "Sega originally planned to use actual car seats, but changed the seats before releasing the game" - Source needed
- Fixed. The source on the seats is the same source as the whole paragraph. Red Phoenix talk 16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Development
- The first three paragraphs have only once source at the end, which is fine, but can you confirm if they are for the whole paragraph?
- First sentence doesn't read nicely
- The comment in the image caption regarding the linking is unnecessary and is already mentioned in the Gameplay section
- Fixed. Yes, the sources at the end are for the whole paragraph; the book is an excellent source that covers the development in more rigor than any other source I've seen. Red Phoenix talk 16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- At the time of release, GE Aerospace was actually under Martin Marietta, so I don't quite follow why the older name is used here? Is it to accommodate the link to the Wikipedia article on GE Aerospace? F355fan talk 16:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Reception & legacy
- "(which are based strictly on sales achievements)" - I don't think this needs to be in brackets
CrimsonFox talk 11:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Crimsonfox: other than ref #20, which I'm confused what you're looking for, all addressed. Red Phoenix talk 16:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Red Phoenix: Great work! Ref #20 that links to this article doesn't have a proper title, author, date, website etc. it's just "Archived copy" CrimsonFox talk 17:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I see it now, haha. It doesn’t show up in VisualEditor because none of the refs in the review box do - #20 when VE is on was a Next Generation ref that was filled in. Anyway, filled in. Red Phoenix talk 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ah that would explain it, all done! Congrats! CrimsonFox talk 08:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I see it now, haha. It doesn’t show up in VisualEditor because none of the refs in the review box do - #20 when VE is on was a Next Generation ref that was filled in. Anyway, filled in. Red Phoenix talk 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Red Phoenix: Great work! Ref #20 that links to this article doesn't have a proper title, author, date, website etc. it's just "Archived copy" CrimsonFox talk 17:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)