Talk:Fighters Uncaged

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cognissonance (talk · contribs) 12:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Between today and tomorrow, the review will be uncaged. –Cognissonance (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

• Do you own Fighters Uncaged? The infobox could do well with some credits, cited from the video game.

No, I do not own it.

Lead

• "The game" is repeated often. Vary. The second use of "The player" can be replaced with "Simon".
• "though the biggest issue they had with the game was its motion control system" – Improve flow: "and citing its motion control system as the biggest issue they had with the game".
• Mention the praise, however little. If there isn't any, ignore this.

Honestly, I cannot find any praise for any aspects of the game. I tried quite hard to find some when I started writing the article.

Gameplay and setting

• "and setting" is not necessary. The environment isn't mentioned.
• "a man attempting to win an illegal fighting tournament to help get his father out of trouble with a crime lord" – Rewrite so it isn't as similar to what's in the lead.
• "The game" and The player are used too many times. Where appropriate, add alternatives like "Fighters Uncaged" and "Simon", respectively.
• "it is easier to read the telegraphs of the opponent, but as the player progresses through the game, they become less obvious" – Reads like WP:POV. I suggest "it is made less difficult to read the telegraphs of the opponent, but as the player progresses through the game, they become increasingly imperceptible".
• "on where the opponent is at the time, and therefore only certain moves will land hits at certain times" – Avoid repetition: "on where the opponent is at the time, and therefore only certain moves will land hits at particular moments".
• "Good scores are attained by accomplishing counters" – Clarify: "Good scores are attained by way of counter-attacks".

Went with attained by accomplishing counter attacks. Is that fine?

That's completely fine. –Cognissonance (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Development and release

• "on August 18, 2010 at Gamescom" – The source was published the day after this, so I think it's best to just stick with "at Gamescom 2010".
• "three months before its official release" – Source the official release.

I've sourced it to this. Is that what you meant? It's now got a source to the exact release date.

That's what I meant. –Cognissonance (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Among other things, Fighters Uncaged promised multiplayer but the feature was left out of the final product. This can be established in the Development and release section, while mentioned briefly in Reception from those who commented on it.

Added a mention of the planned multiplayer.

• Ref. 2 does not mention the release date, and ref. 8 only mentions November. Remove both and use ref. 9 instead.
• "a term of which Zuffa has trademarked" – Grammar and past tense: "a term which Zuffa had trademarked".
• "It was claimed" – Clarify: "Zuffa claimed".
• "because of the "irreparable injury to its business, reputation, and goodwill" Zuffa claimed, they sought" – Remove everything and continue with "and sought". Too many quotes.
• Ref. 11 is used twice in succession from here. Need only the last one.

Reception

• "though not for a good reason" Improve prose: "though ultimately nonessential".
• "described the tutorial as being "the most boring tutorial" – Avoid repetition: "described it as being "the most boring tutorial".
• Find positive reception if possible.

See above. It is honestly like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Every review I've read only talk about the negatives.

Overall

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose and grammar needs improvement. Positive reception may or may not be warranted.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Must allocate sources better. External links check out. Copyvio is clean.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall

   Pass/Fail:

   @Anarchyte: I made some minor edits myself. –Cognissonance (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: Thank you very much for the review. I've addressed most of it and I'll come back and finish the rest off soon. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: Alright, I've completed all of the points above. Got any more ideas? Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:38, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I found just one more thing, a "successor" called Fighter Within. It's not important enough to warrant its own section, but put it first in See also with the Eurogamer source and we're pretty much done. –Cognissonance (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cognissonance: Great! I've added an entry to the see also. I remember trying to find info on whether there was a sequel, but I couldn't find any. Maybe my searches weren't broad enough at the time (they're popping up left, right, and center now). Oh well, thanks for pointing it out! Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:25, 6 June 2017 (UTC)