Talk:Quantum Redshift

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Quantum Redshift. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. BigLordFlashtalk 11:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Quantum Redshift/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 01:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: BigLordFlash (talk · contribs) 16:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will review this article. If you have any questions just talk to me on my talk page.

    • Hi @BigLordFlash:, thank you for taking the time to review. I have addressed the comments below. Let me know if there's anything else I can action.

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:
    I left some comments below. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    Nothing wrong here. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    It has a list of all references. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    I did a spot-check below. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    No original research. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    No copyright violations (Earwig) BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    All the main aspects are addressed. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
    It stays focused on the topic. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
    It's totally neutral. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    It is stable. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    No copyright issues. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Images have suitable captions. BigLordFlashtalk 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Lead[edit]

  • "Publication of the game was troubled, with Curly Monsters staff voicing creative differences on packaging and marketing decisions made by Microsoft Game Studios." - this sentence can be rewritten, for example: "The game's publication faced challenges, as Curly Monsters staff voiced creative differences regarding packaging and marketing decisions made by Microsoft Game Studios."
    • checkY Done.

Gameplay[edit]

  • "collecting objects" - what kind of objects?
    • checkY These are the power-ups mentioned earlier, but I have made this more clear. If you check the manual, these are generic and color-coded, so there's not really any way to describe them beyond red, yellow, blue, and so on.

Sales[edit]

  • Who is Andy Satterthwaite?
    • exclamation mark  Andy Satterthwaite is mentioned earlier in the article as a member of the development team.

Reception[edit]

  • "Reviewers were mixed on the track design for the game." - could be "Regarding track design, reviewers had mixed opinions."
    • checkY Done, although preferred to state this in active over passive voice.
  • "Shawn Sanders of Game Revolution stated 'Quantum Redshift doesn't do much wrong, but it doesn't really try to do much new, either...if you own any other hovercraft racer for any other system, then you more than likely own Quantum Redshift already'." - This quote effectively captures the sentiment, but you could consider paraphrasing it slightly for clarity without losing its essence. For example, Shawn Sanders of Game Revolution noted that while Quantum Redshift doesn't have major flaws, it also doesn't introduce significant new elements to the genre."
    • checkY Done.

Retrospective reception[edit]

  • "In contrast, writing for The Escapist, Jim Rossignol evaluated the game as a 'flawed and doomed project', stating 'whatever you thought of Quantum Redshift's lavish imitations, its water-beaded camera and hyperbolic, spandex-carved pilots, the facts of its critical and commercial slump are undeniable', association its failure to unfavorable comparisons to Wipeout." - This sentence is a bit long and complex. Consider breaking it down for better readability. For example: "On the other hand, Jim Rossignol of The Escapist evaluated the game as a 'flawed and doomed project.' He noted that despite Quantum Redshift's visual elements and stylistic choices, its critical and commercial failure was evident, attributing its shortcomings to unfavorable comparisons with Wipeout."
    • checkY Done.

Spot-check[edit]

Based on this version

It's a very well written article, without any problems, and meets the criteria for Good Article. I will pass this one. Congratulations! BigLordFlashtalk 11:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quantum_Redshift&oldid=1220698855"