Talk:F-Zero Climax/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 22:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I more or less started the review on the talk page, so I'll finish it here. czar ♔ 22:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

lede should clarify that it was only released in Japan, and since this is the English WP, it would be nice to know whether such a version was even considered
"the last in the franchise": last handheld or last game? cl
[1] is either down or dead
not within the GAN scope, but Nintendo World Report should be in the |work= field of {{cite}} as an italicized web magazine
thanks for using list-defined refs—easier to copyedit
"combines the speed boosting systems": expecting two things to be combined here, but it isn't clear what is being combined
changed machine → vehicle for readability
I started to copyedit but there are a bunch of issues with clarity. I tried to fix a few of them myself but I'm taking stabs at their meaning because I haven't played the game. The prose should read so someone who has never played F-Zero would know what it's talking about. First describe the basic game then add the extra boosts and whatever and explain how they work
for posterity, we previously discussed broadness and lack of sources for legacy and development sections on the article's talk page
the sole screenshot's caption can do a better job of explaining the explanation for its existence as given in the fair use rationale (more descriptive of the actual image) I'd recommend moving it up to Gameplay for visibility
words to watch (1b): "speculated" (WP:SAY)

On hold for a week czar ♔ 02:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Siliconera should be italicized? Why? « Ryūkotsusei » 15:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS: Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized czar ♔ 16:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'm just unaware of which one of those Siliconera falls into - I've treated it before no different than IGN. For Point 1, best I could do is explain why Nintendo World Report and Siliconera thought it would be released outside Japan. I'd like to finish off with reporting the anime was canceled outside Japan but... no reliable source said it was. For gameplay clarification issues I had to use some primary sources. I did try to meet all points though. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Any of the categories (any news-focused website). I commend your fixes and I think they address everything. I gave it some more copyediting—rougher or more cursory, though, because it's on borrowed time—and I think it could use a more thorough look, if you can ask a friend. This said, it's close to clear/concise (for a GA lazy pass), but for my own standards it could be more so. Eh, whatever, I'll bite. Okay, the lede needs to be more representative of the article—however you want to cut it, but I suggest two paragraphs. Needs more about how the game actually plays and things that the reader would want to know. Is it the first game to let players damage each other in general or the first to allow the spin attack? In the former case, just say so, in the latter case, is it important enough for the lede? Also more can be said about the reception in the lede. As for the rest, I'd try reading the article out loud to yourself or a friend and rephrase the parts that trip up, since more can be done to tighten the clarity/concision. My recent edits are examples of what I'm seeing, but I'd be primarily concerned with the clarity of each individual and adjacent sentences. The jargon in the Gameplay should either be defined or explicated: boosts? mechanics? jump pits? Once I see that it has general flow, I can resume the read/copyedit. czar ♔ 05:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify "races on courses high above the ground" in the source (and I'm not sure what it means—is it meant to imply that the vehicles are huge because from the screenshot it looks like they're hovering just above the ground)
Also the first ¶ of Gameplay is almost exclusively about boosting—is that due weight? Shouldn't there be like "there are 28 tracks" and more description of the game itself and maybe a few lines about boosting if necessary (otherwise those parts border on gamecruft) czar ♔ 15:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides number of tracks, that's all there is missing to basics. I've added a bit of gameplay to reception. Also, I was hoping NWR's "much more noticeable separation between the track and ground below" would be enough - guess not. « Ryūkotsusei » 18:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that the "high above" was wrong—just that I didn't see it in the source. I wouldn't say it follows from that line, though you could say they're hovering. czar ♔ 21:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem with these limited sources that cater to specific fan bases. They assume its readers knows basics like that. Still seems a bit like conjecture so I'm not going to bother. « Ryūkotsusei » 02:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The intro to Gameplay still isn't nice on the eyes. How about something like F-Zero Climax is a racing game where players race around 53 tracks (mention different modes etc.) Then go into how a single race is played: players select (maybe how the vehicles are different?), explain the features of the track, explain how the meters and boost and attacks work, what effect they have on the other players, and so on. Do you catch my drift? I'd use a little more license here with spelling out what's implicit in the source. czar ♔ 23:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, unfortunately. Just fail it. I usually skip the GAC process anyway. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ryūkotsusei, are you sure? I'm willing to work through it czar ♔ 01:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not. A subject relying on two sources? Pathetic. See ya! « Ryūkotsusei » 17:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)