GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: A412 (talk · contribs) 19:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'll do this one. ~ A412 talk! 19:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  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 (references):
    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, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

References

References as of this version.

Spot checks:

RS: I'm not familiar with some of these .ru sites. What are gametech.ru, gameguru.ru, km.ru, and stopgame.ru?

OR: Everything appears cited.

CV: Earwig comes back clean.

Images

Cover art: I have no doubt that this is the correct cover art, but sourcing it from ModDB seems to fail WP:USERG.

Gameplay image: No issues.

Prose

Lead

Never thought anyone could believe this might mean multiple vehicles! Also the urge to utilize higher-level vocabulary. I thought I could compromise by changing it to "Players control one of an assortment of motor vehicles ...", since the vehicles are sorted into classes. If need be, I can remove the "assortment" part.
Come to think of it, off-road racing is a major mode. And yes, there are a total of ten modes, so "nine other game modes".
I just reread it, and clearly I hiccuped. I was confused, too, by my own writing, especially with the "game to be succeeded" part. Such awkward phrasing there. Also concision.
It slipped past my watch, but I decided to just make it concise; "so as" is replaced with "to", and "some" is deleted.
It never occurred to me in all my history of editing video game articles that I would need to clarify what AI refers to, but this proves me wrong. A casual reader may not readily grasp what it is. I fixed it.

Gameplay

It was there because it was the only source I could find to clarify which of the Americas, but it was probably not necessary how the citation was placed. The footnote is moved to after Antarctica.
I thought about that part before the review started, and decided as well that it was pointless verbiage. I doubt I will ever be able to explain why I thought then that was important.
Very well.
Generally, when I write, there is the desire to utilize a wide vocabulary of words to avoid using "repetitive" language, especially the sort that readers will find glaring. I may be the only one who will find such choice of words glaring. All instances of "racer" are changed to "player".
You explained that better than apparently I could have.
No, I don't think so. For brevity's sake, I will just replace most of that part with "has".
It's fixed, although I do not see any point putting the parenthesized text under reception.

Development and release

Thought I did not need to link it since "Insane" was already linked in Gameplay.
Oh dear, I must have embellished my writing at the expense of obfuscating its meaning. I should stop doing that.
I will trim it down. However, with the other two sources, I removed their mentions since the reader can just look at the citations so see who was interviewing the designer. Is that all right?
I concluded it was fitter to put it there since the source told it in the context of development, but you are probably right. It is moved.
I replaced "ordered" with "bought". Is that sufficient for understanding the text?

Reception

There is, but the Metacritic page suffers from having three reviews instead of four. Therefore, it gets no Metascore. I also checked an archive of GameRankings, but there was absolutely nothing about review data. I even briefly skimmed the situationally acceptable OpenCritic in the rare event it has an item on the game, which, naturally, it does not. I will take for granted that MOS:VG does not allow for such judgement in the absence of sources, so it has been removed. In case the guideline extends to the Hungarian reviews, I also deleted that part.
I changed it to "driver artificial intelligence".
I did it again, did I not? As I said, the desire for a wide diction of words. "Program", in retrospect, sounds artificial.
Not applicable, I already deleted the "mixed" part as per an above edit suggestion, assuming that MOS:VG forbids that type of language without a source.
This should have said "observed bugs in driver AI performance".
While my talk page never received a notification that this article was place on hold, I am crossing out edit suggestions while improving the article, as I typically do when responding to GA reviews, commenting and asking questions if necessary. I will be doing that for several days. Also, consider looking at what I wrote about the PC Games review. I apologize for not adding it in time. I should have done that not long after receiving a copy on January 6. FreeMediaKid$ 07:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]