Talk:Wipeout Omega Collection

Wipeout Omega Collection has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Wipeout Omega Collection is part of the Wipeout series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 25, 2021	Good article nominee	Listed
April 20, 2021	Good topic removal candidate	Kept

Current status: Good article

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
	This article was accepted from this draft on 22 September 2017 by reviewer GeoffreyT2000 (talk · contribs).

Video games Low‑importance

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

List of Minecraft characters (4 participants)
Carlton Wilborn (4 participants)
Cossacks (video games series) (2 participants)
Rat Race (video game) (7 participants)
Red Barrels (3 participants)
TheoTown (12 participants; relisted)
Old Grandma Hardcore (6 participants; relisted)
Zero Hour (video game) (6 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

VanUber-Tigron Omega Mashup.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wipeout Omega Collection/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Haleth (talk · contribs) 01:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking notes, and I will be right back with comments. Haleth (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lede

Wipeout Omega Collection was the first release without the involvement of original developers Studio Liverpool following its closure in 2012. Could use a rewrite as the sentence seems clunky. I am not sure why past tense is used; "first release" of...?

Rewritten. A bit sloppy here. ♦ jaguar 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...with many critics welcoming the series' return and the preservation of its high quality visuals and ubiqitious techno soundtrack. My understanding from reading critic comments and feedback is that not only were the visuals preserved, it also appeared to be upgraded; although to what extent, the content and development sections do not have any prose which address or explain the upgrades. Typo for ubiquitous.

Addressed this. I got the preservation part mixed up; it is was more or less the return of the series' distinctive techno soundtrack which garnered appreciation among critics. ♦ jaguar 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

Again, no prose which explains to the reader any context behind the upgraded visual experience other then just "native resolution of 1080p on the PlayStation 4 and 4K on the PlayStation 4 Pro, both at 60 frames per second". I think its necessary for broadness of coverage. Everything else is fine.

I've added a bit more and included its HDR-compatability, though there isn't much to mention other than its upgraded visuals, textures and special effects. ♦ jaguar 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Development and release

The compilation features 28 licensed soundtracks. If the PlayStation Music app is installed, players can use the "Best of WipEout" Spotify playlist to play tracks from older Wipeout games. I don't believe this should be under the development and release section. Suggest merging this with the prose under "Gameplay" and retitle it as "Contents" like BioShock: The Collection.

Thank you, done. ♦ jaguar 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Martin Robinson's specific description of facts about the upgrades, for example, could be used to explain the visual enhancements which were alluded to but not properly addressed under the Gameplay/Contents section. I'm sure other critics would have expressed similar sentiment.

Done. ♦ jaguar 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the websites cited like IGN, GameSpot and GamesRadar are not formatted with italics. As far as I can tell, it is standard and widespread practice in articles throughout the Wikiproject, including the articles about said websites, to present them as such.

I've never italicised websites – in the case of IGN specifically it can be argued that it is a network or media cooperation similar to CNN or BBC. I don't know why some video game articles have it formatted that way as it's definitely not common practice elsewhere. ♦ jaguar 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Devore noted that certain long-time players of the franchise would feel fatigued over the tracks that have been used repeatedly over the years, but nevertheless thought the overall experience was entertaining in its own right. Devore comes across as attempting to speak for other gamers in this context, whether enough players feel the same way or otherwise. Suggest replacing "noted" with "opined" and "would" with "may" to reflect a more neutral tone for the purpose of this article.

Well spotted, I usually don't miss this sort of thing. Done. ♦ jaguar 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all the issues I could find. Placing this review on hold. Haleth (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Haleth! A compact article, owing to the fact that it is pretty much a meagre remaster of a 2008 remaster. Perhaps the critics were too lenient with this one, even if there was a collective cheer for the return of Wipeout. I've addressed all of the above, though I remain unsure on formatting websites with italics. I never knew why it is done that way sometimes, or what is right or wrong. I'll look into that. ♦ jaguar 21:55, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion here. It is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things and I certainly will not fail this review over it, but I think it would be good to get some clarity or feedback on the issue of formatting websites with italic.

I also spotted one more typo: ...HDR-comparability... Haleth (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus that formed in the discussion I've started above appears to indicate that this is a non-issue as far as good article criteria is concerned, although it is noted that a noticeable consistency of citation style within an article is good practice. The typo has been addressed, so this article is now a pass for me. Haleth (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]