This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
Would there be any way to mention the original title in the lead? I also wonder if the name could be removed from this section, merely clarifying that it was marketed under it after it's first mentioned in the development section.
Done -- I managed to squeeze in the original title in the lead section. I thought about removing the Redemption name from the release section but i wanted to keep it that way because that's how the game was first announced before being released as I-War. I also remembered that i arranged the line that way based on old suggestions of another GA reviewer in regards to another Jaguar game (BattleSphere). But if you have any other suggestions then you're welcome to say it and i'll add it into the article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
The EGM source claims that the four reviewers stated it being a combination, but only one reviewer did, so that should be clarified.
Done -- Ah, i can clarify this: the EGM score in the reception section is actually the aggregate based on the scores the four EGM reviewers gave to the game. I took it from MobyGames (1). I decided to place a note indicating that it was reviewed by four critics. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Files
The gameplay screenshot needs to have a more specific fair use rationale. "Not replaceable with free media because" and "Respect for commercial opportunities" should have n.a. replaced.
The fair use rationale should be more specific; it's not *bad*, but you should absolutely clarify some aspects of its visuals or gameplay that make it important to show.
To the average reader, what is happening in the screenshot may be confusing, and thus should have a caption that goes into greater detail than merely "Gameplay screenshot." For example, I find it difficult to tell what is going on. Are these enemies all over the screen? Projectiles?
Is Atari Times a reliable source? I feel like I may have asked another editor this, but I'm not sure, as I do not see it on the video game reliable source database.
I can easily answer you this question, since another GA reviewer asked it too during the process with Atari Karts: The Atari Times was originally a newsletter started by the reviewer (Gregory D. George) back in 1996 (1). They transitioned to an online format sometime in the 90s or in the 2000s. George also published books about The Atari Times, which included words by other reviewers. They're kinda like the Hardcore Gaming 101 books for comparison (2). Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is MO5 a reliable source? I similarly cannot find it on the reliable sources page.
MO5.com (1) is a video game website and association launched in 1996. Their articles are basically the equivalent of those seen in Gematsu, but focused on retro gaming instead although they occasionally do article about more modern game releases. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've performed a spotcheck on the following sources: the aforementioned EGM source (which will be approved for accuracy once what I assume is a simple wording error); EGM issue 78 (the citation for page 138); the AtariAge forum source; and Jaguar Explorer Online. No issues found with accuracy.