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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
fair use rationales:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Comments
Is it reasonably well written?
Per
WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the article in an appropriate way according to the article size. Given the size of the article the lead is incredibly short
layout sections that are short should be merged to their parent, and short paragraphs should also be merged. There are several instances where there are one-paragraph sections and very short paragraphs
While it is well sourced, there is no indication that most of these sources pass
reliable sources guidelines. Many a
primary sources which are directly related to the project, and thus cannot be used to establish facts and
notability, only to support it. Several more third-party reliable sources are needed.
Is it broad in its coverage?
The article provides excessive details per
WP:GAMETRIVIA. Please see Halo 3 for a good example on what content is appropriate and what is too excessive in detail.
It seems to largely promote the game. The amount of detail, the lack of any real criticism in the Reception section, etc.
For that matter, I couldn't find any reliable media outlets in the Reception games that had reviewed the game, and only one that is questionably reliable
The amount of images given seems excessive. Again, the detail feels far too complex. Between the text and images it reads more like a technical document.
Have these images been checked by an admin on Commons? I couldn't find any confirmation that the proper permissions had been given to make them freely available.
Unfortunately given the number of issues I can't pass this as a good article.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on
Speed Dreams. 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: 5 June 2024).
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.