Talk:Wheels of Aurelia/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: StewdioMACK (talk · contribs) 09:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I'll review this. StewdioMACK (talk) 09:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this StewdioMACK. For whatever reason, Legobot didn't send me any notifications on this. Let me know if I can help in any way. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• References in the lead are generally discouraged. This was brought up in the last GA nomination for this article as well (as were a number of my comments actually). The info on Out Run and Il Sorpasso should be moved elsewhere in the article, perhaps to the Development section. Significant info should not really be in the lead that isn't elsewhere in the article, either, per MOS:LEAD.
• Out Run is referred to as OutRun (without the space) in the lead, and should be changed to be proper.
• Both of these names should be italicised. Include the release year for Il Sorpasso (which is a film), as well.
• The lead should be longer, and definitely could be. Remember, try and summarise the article. There's currently no info from the reception section, for example.
• Some sentences here (and throughout the article) could be made more concise. "While every run of the game is fairly short, it offers 16 endings." Do we need "every run of" in this sentence?

Plot

• I would link "single parents" to be consistent with the other terms in the sentence.

Gameplay

• Can the notes be incorporated into the main article text? MOS:FNNR states that explanatory footnotes should be used to "give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article". I don't really see anything there too awkward to be in the body.
• "The game boasts 16 different endings." The word "boasts" sounds a little unencyclopedic. Perhaps "features".
• "Via Aurelia" should be italicised.
• In the note, The Walking Dead should be italicised.

Reception

• "MetaCritic" should be "Metacritic".
• At one point, the article refers to the PlayStation edition as the "PS4 version". In the next sentence, it uses "PlayStation version". One should be changed for consistency.
• What did Metacritic rate for the PS4 edition? Seems relevant and isn't there.
• Eurogamer, IGN Italy, Kotaku, Game Informer (both mentions), Edge, Switch Player, and Nintendo Life all need to be italicised.
• There are two mentions of the article title (Wheels of Aurelia) that aren't italicised, which is strange because the first mention in the section is.
• Overall, the structure for this section is quite weak. Try and look at how other good articles structure their reception sections to improve this.
• I'm concerned that there may be excessive quoting in this part of the article. Try to work the quotes further into the actual text.
• "Kotaku was very positive about the game's graphics, saying, "Playing this game is like playing an Italian neorealist film. Although [it] takes place long after the end of the cinematic movement, it still captures the naturalness and honesty of the films of that genre. Wheels of Aurelia captures a moment in time when conventions of Italian life were being challenged, and it’s worth getting a little insight into these struggles."" This is the biggest example of overquoting I could see. This passage is just one long quote. Try and paraphrase it and/or cut it down.

Sources

• MobyGames is an unreliable source. Please try and remove the eight instances they are cited.
• Sources are overall formatted quite nicely. Nice work.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Getting there, just some issues with lead section and layout. See my main comments.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Conclusion

A few of the points from the last GA nomination of this article have been addressed, but a whole load of them haven't been and still apply. I'm really sorry to have to do this, but I think there's just too much to do for this to have a chance of passing the first GA criteria, "Well written", this time around. I also have some concerns with sourcing (particularly the abundance of MobyGames refs), and the three fair use images on the article (with lacking rationales). Those are the main reasons why I must ✗ Fail this. You've done some good work here, and I advise you to keep improving this article and working on some of the issues brought up here and in the last GA review for this article, carefully look through the GA criteria, and then renominate. Keep at it, and I'm sure you'll get it next time! StewdioMACK (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)