Talk:Jet Moto (video game)

Usable refs

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

assement clarrification

Per request, I'll elaborate. The Start-class assement rather than C-class is mostly due multiple failures to comply with the various MoSs, one of the criteria that is specifically referenced as denoting a start-class article from a C-class. I don't feel like pointing out every example, but a few violate that are quoting terms, short lead (which lacks any storyline and given the development section it appears they at least had a scenario that could be summed up in 1-2 sentancees since this doesn't seem to be a typical racing game), spelling out numbers larger than single-digits, etc.

There are of course larger issues that would also qualify this for C-class, such as needing to condense the gameplay section, like the paragraph on Magnetic Grapple which could be sum up the basic premise in one sentance: they create magnetic poles to help speed up the player around tight turns.陣内_Jinnai 03:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

C-Class justificaton

C-Class Criteria

From Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades: WikiProject article quality grading scheme Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example  GA The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (video game) (as of August 2010)

For ease of justification, I have divided the assessor's comments and my rebuttals up into a list format.

• short lead (which lacks any storyline and given the development section it appears they at least had a scenario that could be summed up in 1-2 sentences since this doesn't seem to be a typical racing game)

• I understand the need for a setting/plot, however there is none. The game does not even go far enough to explain why the jet moto sport exists. There is nothing to add to the lead that would not lead to some sort of fabrication
  • There is still a setting though from what little I read.陣内_Jinnai 20:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• spelling out numbers larger than single-digits

• I've corrected the single offending instance

• needing to condense the gameplay section, like the paragraph on Magnetic Grapple which could be sum up the basic premise in one sentence

• Readers will not be able to understand the use of the grapple properly in one sentence, as the grapple is a core gameplay mechanic and is used in multiple ways
  • That is not the job of Wikipedia. We are not hear to tell how a gameplay works in detail, but give overview. An exception might exist if you can find some independent reliable sources that comment directly on this gameplay element and why its interesting. Otherwise its WP:GAMEGUIDEy to give so much specific detail as you are essentially telling people how to play the game.

• but a few violate that are quoting terms

• I assume this means putting quotations around game-specific terms. These have been removed.

I've trimmed out a lot of my original justification. Admittedly I was a bit upset by the verdict given, and should have waited awhile before responding to this. I've also expanded the article significantly since the assessment in hopes that it can now pass C-Class. Please look over the article again and let me know what could be improved. --Teancum (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'll recheck it out.陣内_Jinnai 20:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, I think it probably meets C-class now. I still believe the gameplay section violated WP:GAMEGUIDE per reasons above, but that's not something that should hold it back from C-class.陣内_Jinnai 20:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

• I gave it a quick copyedit and read it through, and two more comments spring to mind at the moment.
  • The bit where you talk about "Stunt mode" should probably be rephrased into a more encyclopedic style, rather than it's current "You can unlock it by doing this, and it is like this" feel/tone. The entire Gameplay section could probably benefit from a few small changes here and there to alter its tone and flow, but it isn't bad.
  • I cannot really find anything written in detail about setting/plot for this game, thus I cannot really comment on the lack of it as pointed out in a previous review.

---Taelus (Talk) 07:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Noted and updated Gameplay section to clear any spammy tones and trim to the bare essentials. --Teancum (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

B-class assessment

Resolved issues

Coming here per a request. Overall, I will say this article appears to be much better than last time I checked it. Congrats! However, there are still some issues that would prevent me from making it b-class: sources: 1 - appears to be SPS, so why should it be considered reliable? This was the only information I could find on the composer. Cited in-game credits using {{cite video game}} 6 - why is Luke Puckett considered a reliable source? I don't see the issue here, it is only listing a release date, not making a commentary Replaced with a Eurogamer reference to resolve any issue 8 - ditto #1 This site belongs to an employee who worked on the game, and is the only source I have found for development. I was unsure myself, so I asked the same question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 82#Individual Dev's personal web sites as sources - the response was that the source could be used. 9 - ditto #1 & 8 See here 11 - ditto #1, 8 & 9陣内Jinnai 18:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources does not list the source as unreliable. What problem specifically do you have with this source? It is a long running branch of G4TV, which is considered a reliable source. I've replied to the above. Please let me know what you think --Teancum (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I noticed you tagged the fictional sponsors for the game. I purposely did not name them for fear of WP:GAMECRUFT issues, and I felt that the two real-world sponsors were sufficient to make the point of sponsorship. --Teancum (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

• Listing all of them would be. I guess if your going to go out of your way to note it has both real and fictional sponsors, you should give an example. If you don't feel its necessary to add, for B-class I wouldn't count that against this article, but for higher class articles they might want to know why you're making a note of it.
• Grammar

• poor prose like lots of "as well as"

• Covered all instances of "as well as"

• wordy prose like "For the PlayStation release in Europe, Jet Moto was retitled Jet Rider." instead of "The European release was retitled Jet Rider." If the European version on the PSN is the PS1 game, then there is no need to mention that its the PlayStation version or the Jet Moto title. Stuff like that can be assumed the reader should know.

• Removed the sentence. It's covered in the lead and I agree it is unnecessary to restate in the prose.

• Travis Hilton - is lead programmer is official title? if so, it should be capitalized. If not, get his official title and capitalize that. Then rephrase that sentence.

• Done, generalized and rephrased the sentence.

• Ref 21 - the way the quote is divided makes it seem like that comes from multiple sections. It would be best to have the who quote in one sentence and I would not remove the "most importantly" as it changed the nature of the quote. The reviewer is emphasizing that of the three, the fun factor is key here. That is not evidence with the elipse.

• Simplified prose

• ditto with #11

• Simplified as above

• Actually you have four quotes in the review section, three of them right next to one another. That is an issue because it looks like the article is heavily relying on review scores and quotes instead of paraphrasing. I think for the middle paragraph one quote is enough given its length. It is actually a sign of lower-class articles to have that many quotes per amount of text. If your review section was the size of say School Rumble#Reception, then that amount would be fine.

• I've rephrased most quotes in to paraphrasing, I still need to rewrite the sentence on the bike design. I'm not happy with it.

• Again grammar. It doesn't have to be perfect, but basic stuff like capitalization of proper nouns and such need to be there for B-class.陣内_Jinnai 18:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'm guessing that you refer to the jet moto bikes themselves. The game's manual does not capitalize them, and I assume "jet moto" is the equivalent of "motorcycle" in the game's setting. Searching for other issues. --Teancum (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

B-Class Criteria

Taken from WP:BCLASS The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

I'm having trouble understanding exactly why this is failing B-Class. It seems most issues are related to criteria B4, however the criteria even states that the prose "certainly need not be "brilliant. The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously." Also, I have merged the Setting section back into the Gameplay section per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Organization - "if the plot is not too complex, it can be lumped in with the gameplay; otherwise, put it in its own section." --Teancum (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

• It was basically those issues: references, capitalization, some of the really bad prose that didn't flow well and the use of a lot of quotes, basically it was failing #1 earlier and #4 until the edits. That's been fixed well enough for B-class as there isn't any major issue.陣内_Jinnai 19:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for the thorough review! --Teancum (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jet Moto (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gamespot.com/jet-moto-1996/related/release/platform/ps/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618050515/http://kotaku.com/257506/ps-store-updates-psone-support-gauntlet-ii-ducks to http://kotaku.com/257506/ps-store-updates-psone-support-gauntlet-ii-ducks
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.game-revolution.com/games/sony/jetmoto.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213051912/http://www.gamespot.com/ps/driving/jetmoto/review.html to http://www.gamespot.com/ps/driving/jetmoto/review.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elecplay.com/sony/jetmoto.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050321205038/http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/jetmoto/review.html to http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/jetmoto/review.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://homepage.mac.com/grafzepp/download/JMDesign.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jet Moto (video game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715152931/http://rampantgames.com/blog/2007/01/jet-moto-memories.html to http://www.rampantgames.com/blog/2007/01/jet-moto-memories.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19980613221738/http://www.game-revolution.com/games/sony/jetmoto.htm to http://www.game-revolution.com/games/sony/jetmoto.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)