Talk:Supercross 3D

GA review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Supercross 3D/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: KGRAMR (talk · contribs) 23:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 23:13, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

I've highlighted feedback to action as a bang ( ). The other feedback is general feedback that sits outside the GAN review criteria, which would be nice to progress but doesn't need to be completed in full. I'll let you know when I've finished the review.

Attribution

• All images are correctly attributed.

Spot check for specific quotes

[1] Y [2] Y [5] Y [6] Y [9]   Better to keep to what the reviewer stated - the tracks were described as "poorly designed", not boring per se. [14] Y [18] Y [20] Y But you may like to pinpoint specific pages over the entire chapter given that the source is used only twice. [39] Y [42] Y

Other feedback:

Lead

•   What are the "three modes"? It could help to just say that the game features quick races and a tournament mode.

Gameplay

•   Motocross Championship and Dirt Trax FX aren't mentioned in the citations and could be omitted in this section.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Development

• Texture mapping deserves a wikilink. Definitely have a look over and see if any other terms could benefit, like DSP or rendering. The phrase SGI-rendering seems like it wouldn't need hyphenation.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• The but implies the game's last-minute appearance at ECTS is somehow connected to the game's delay. Assuming that isn't the case, does the source provide a reason for why the game was delayed?

 Done -- Reworked the sentence in question. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Reception

•   As a form matter, any chance we can shake up the presentation of the sentence structure slightly? A lot of these are Reviewer praised the game for its X, Y and Z, and critiqued it for its X, Y and Z. Even just moving the sentences around to avoid this happening consecutively would help a bunch.
•   WP:EDITORIAL language is usually a FA concern, but it can be helpful to pick up on it. We often paraphrase the reviews as if we are agreeing with the assessment of the game: i.e. commended the game for its impressive graphics compared to said the game was.... This is a tedious correction but seems to be a solid part of the MOS.

 Done -- hopefully... Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• The game has over ten cited reviews. At this stage, it's common to avoid sequentially paraphrasing reviews and consider common features across reviews to avoid repetition. At the least, you may wish to differentiate the paragraphs by mixed and negative reviews.

 Done -- I ordered the reviews on the reception section based on the overall score given by each publication, ranging from mixed to negative. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

•   I similarly often run afoul of WP:SAID when drafting reception sections. It gets a bit much here: we get opined, considered, lambasted. I do this all the time. It might be an indication, as above, these sections are a little too sequential and repetitive. Again, this is a bit tedious but is a MOS thing.

 Done -- I did some changes here and there regarding the words in question. Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

•   AGH didn't state they found the game "entertaining to a degree", they found it "fun to play to an extent". Better to quote, but either way it feels like a vague qualification worth omitting.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

• Given two other retrospective reviews occurred in the 2000s, the year of publication of the nexGam review isn't so relevant here.

 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vrxces:Done with the first pass! Let me know any other details that needs to be addressed. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

@Vrxces:Sorry for the pinging but i want to know if there is anything else left to be done with Supercross 3D? Thanks in advance! Roberth Martinez (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - apologies, I will finalise over the weekend. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey, just a few tiny things more from me, but these are super small. Just ping me once you've had a look over and make whatever changes you think are appropriate, and I'll pass the GA. High-quality stuff as usual. Thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I think as a matter of technicality just focusing on where we're paraphrasing and where we're actually quoting directly and should substitute with a quotation, but it looks generally like the content is pretty accurate and not really a GA thing. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Vrxces:I tackled your remaining inquiries. I will wait for any remaining commentary. Roberth Martinez (talk) 10:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

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.