# Talk:Club Drive

This review is transcluded from Talk:Club Drive/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: KGRAMR (talk · contribs) 16:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 15:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I can pick this one up. Look for more comments in the coming days. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

We'll start with the body. Then once it's solid, we can focus on a good lead.
Gameplay
"... described as a cross between Hard Drivin' and Micro Machines." -> This doesn't mean much to the average reader, who probably won't be familiar with either game.
Let's make the first sentence into a good opening statement about what this racing simulator is all about.
If you really think the comparisons are important, include them in the development (if the developers used those games as inspiration), or reception (if journalists noted similarities).
 Done -- Removed the line in question. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
"The premise takes place in 2098..." -> This sentence is hard to read and gets into a lot of details about the setting and story before I even know what kind of game it is, or what the player does.
 Done -- Changed the plot paragrph. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
See if you can move more of the basic gameplay to this part of the article. (Something like the end of the section -- "During gameplay, the player can drive anywhere..." )
Move the story/setting stuff to later in this section. Also try splitting it into multiple shorter sentences.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
"Gameplay consists of three modes for one or two players, each with their own adjustable ruleset: Collect, Racing, and Tag." -> This is a good sentence, but should be at the start of the paragraph where you summarize all three modes.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
See if you can sum each mode up one sentence each.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
We will come back and look at grammar and word choice once we get the organization right.
Development
Do we really need to recap every single person who worked on this? Be mindful when referencing primary sources like instruction manuals or the game itself. If it wasn't important enough for independent secondary sources to get into it, then it should be limited in weight.
 Done -- I did some reduction in aspect and mentioning only relevant members brought by other sources. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
The cancelled features also don't deserve that much weight. See if you can summarize this in shorter terms. "The game planned to include multiplayer using this tech, but the game was released without it."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
For the release, I think you can list most of the appearances in a single sentence. e.g.: "The game was previewed at X, Y, and Z."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
The exception would be the Planetarium appearance, which should appear in its own sentence. "The game was also featured at the 1994 London Planetarium, where the press and attendees laughed at the game, much to the frustration of Atari marketing manager Darryl Still."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
For organization purposes, include information about (cancelled) follow-ups and re-releases in its own paragraph.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
Let's pause there. You have a good foundation to start with, but there's a fair bit of re-organization that needs to happen before we jump back in on grammar. Let's take this one step at a time. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:19, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:OK! I'll get around to it later today after work. Roberth Martinez (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:OK, first pass done. Ping me when you're ready with the second pass of the article. Gotta rest since i had a severe headcache today due to work-related stress. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry about the wait. I'm looking at the reception and it's running into some of the same problems as the other sections, in terms of organization.
Reception
Slipping the sales figures between critical reception is awkward. Start with sales, and quickly move to critical reception from then on.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
All the statements are well-researched and well-sourced, but I can't really make sense of the order. It's just one opinion after the other.
Try to organize the reception into coherent paragraphs. For example, gameplay vs audiovisual. Or more simply, from most positive to most negative (or vice versa, if you think that accurately represents the tone of coverage).
 Done -- I rearranged the reception section from most positive to most negative. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
See if you can improve the organization by arranging things into two or three paragraphs. We can come back for another pass afterwards. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:Second pass done! Ping me once you come with the third pass of the article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
The organization and flow is a lot better. We'll probably need to do one more pass after the prose stabilizes a bit more. I'm going to focus more on readability and clarity for now.
Gameplay
"The premise is set at the Club Drive theme park, which opened its doors to the public after driving was legalized, following years of prohibition due to safety concerns. Dr. Lawrence Phosphorus created algorithms that could be applied to build indestructible vehicles and lift the ban." -> "The story takes place at a car-friendly theme park, which opened to cars after Dr. Lawrence Phosphorus developed algorithms to create indestructible vehicles."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I may not be understanding the premise correctly. If this is an actual Theme Park with rides and attractions, it seems like a really crazy concept, not unlike Carmageddon. Whichever one it is, it needs to be explained clearly, or to keep it simple so as to not get lost in the details.
 Done -- It is an amusement park. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I still think we're failing to explain how the game plays up front. You get into selecting areas or camera views or car colors. The closest we get to a statement of how this game plays is the ability to drive anywhere and explore locations for hidden areas. Can we try to get more of this stuff up front, before we get into details about modes and control schemes?
 Done -- I rearranged the section more or less. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
"There are four selectable areas." -> "The game features four selectable areas:"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
"or rewind at one point in time" -> this is unclear, and needs to be rephreased.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
" Racing is a race mode in which players must cross a series of lap checkpoints and achieve the fastest time possible." -> is this time based, or is it simply based on crossing the finish line first?
 Done -- It is checkpoint-based (i.e. cross the finish line first). Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
"Tag is a playground-style mode where players chase each other trying to tag a rival before time runs out and win." -> "Tag is a playground-style mode where players attempt to tag each other before time runs out."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
"Each area has two distinct arenas, with one for Racing mode and a smaller one for Collect and Tag modes respectively." -> This would make more sense in the context of talkinfg about the different areas, which you do in the previous paragraph.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
I'll reiterate, I think the sequence could still use some work here. It's not clear what the core gameplay is. Start there, slowly explain the game experience, and finish with details about car colors, cameras, and other meta-game stuff.
Development and release
"in-house" -> this doesn't really mean anything by itself. I think you mean to point out that it's a first party title for the Atari Jaguar?
 Done -- Removed the line in question. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
" West recalled that Atari did not know how to market the game's concept of driving a miniature car and pressured Powers to turn it into a more serious racing title" -> did they succeed? My guess is no. This statement feels incomplete without tying it back to what the team actually did with this feedback.
 Done -- Removed the line in question. Since nobody has been bothered to do an interview with Todd Powers, we may never know the other details about the development of Club Drive. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
"It was planned to feature online multiplayer via Phylon, Inc.'s Jaguar Voice/Data Communicator. The game was released without online support as the modem was delayed and then cancelled in 1995." -> "The game was originally planned to feature online multiplayer through Phylon, Inc.'s Jaguar Voice/Data Communicator, but was developed without online features due to the modem's delay and eventual cancellation."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
"Mumin Corporation published the game in Japan on March 24, 1995. In Spain, it was distributed by Products Final." -> "Mumin Corporation published the game in Japan on March 24, 1995, while Products Final handled distribution in Spain."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Reception
"According to internal documentation from Atari, Club Drive had sold 13,994 copies by April 1, 1995." -> "According to Atari, Club Drive sold 13,994 copies by April 1995."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
" Super Game Power commended its multiplayer mode, but noted that the graphics were not the game's strongest aspect, while Eddy Lawrence and Mark Patterson of Computer and Video Games commended its graphical department but criticized its jerky framerate and vacuous gameplay" -> this is a long and confusing sentence and should be broken up. These are two separate reviews with nothing in common.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
"GameFan found the ability to drive and explore anywhere within the different environments to be its strongest feature, but faulted the game's limited play mechanics, blocky graphics, and controls." -> "GameFan praised the ability to drive and explore anywhere within the different environments, but faulted the game's limited play mechanics, blocky graphics, and controls."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
"GamePro's" -> small typo?
 Done -- I forgot to name the reviewer in the sentence. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
There's still a lot of issues with organization and flow here. It doesn't make sense to join two different reviews into a single sentence where they are expressing different ideas.
"An editor for German publication ST-Computer criticized the visuals but said the game is fun to play, while Game Informer said the two-player split-screen mode will provide entertainment"
" Digital Press' Edward Villalpando had mixed opinions on the gameplay, while Joypad's Nini Nourdine found the vehicle easy to control but noted the limited split-screen view in multiplayer, and heavily criticized the game's buggy 3D visuals and soundscapes."
" Video Games' Wolfgang Schaedle noted the sensitive controls and faulted its gameplay, while VideoGames panned its chunky graphics and unbearable controls"
... combining ideas into a single sentence works better when the ideas expressed are more similar. e.g.: "The first reviewer felt the graphics were unprofessional, while another reviewer also felt that the graphics were disappointing."
 Done -- I separated each review sentence into its own, with the exception of ST-Computer and Game Informer, as well as Video Games (DE) and VideoGames (US). Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
"MAN!AC's Martin Gaksch found Club Drive moderately innovative due to the ability to drive in any direction across the playfield, and highlighted its varied courses and game modes, but felt that the Jaguar had more to offer graphically and disliked its music, and noted that the controls take time getting used to" -> this sentence is really long and hard to read. See if you can hone in on the main idea and make it shorter.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
" found the flat-shaded polygonal visuals to be neat" -> "liked the flat-shaded polygonal visuals"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
" Electronic Gaming Monthly ranked Club Drive number 6 on their "Top 10 Worst Games of All Time" list in 1997." -> this counts as retrospective coverage, for the sake of organization.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
For the other retrospective reviews, try to give context of why they are doing a retrospective, or at least when. For example, Author Andy Slaven notes it in a video game bible (which helps us understand that he was doing a comprehensive look at as many games as possible). The Atari Times seems to be a random retrospective review from 2002, but maybe there is more to this story for why they went back to covering it?
 Done -- Okay so, i found two more sources to flesh out the retrospective section a bit. The Game Informer retrospective, The Atari Times review, the commentary by Andy Slaven, and the review by neXGam are all from 2002 so i did not put the years like i did with IGN and Destructoid. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
"A spiritual follow-up to Club Drive was planned for the Jaguar by Visual Dimensions 3D titled Automaniacs. It was announced at JagFest '97, a show dedicated to the Jaguar scene, but it was never released" -> "Visual Dimensions 3D was inspired to develop Automaniacs as a spiritual follow-up to Club Drive for the Jaguar. This game was announced at JagFest '97, a show dedicated to the Jaguar scene, but was never released."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
There is still a fair bit of work to do, but there has been a lot of improvement already. If we keep working at it, the article will get there. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:Alright! I'll get around to it later today after work and this weekend. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:Third pass done! OK, i'll be on stand-by for your comments. Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
Before we can solidify the lead, we really need to get clear on the body.
The reception still doesn't feel particularly organized -- just one sentence after the other with no real focus or theme. I'm having trouble understanding why these comments are organized into the paragraphs they are, in the order they are. Is there an order? If not, we need to come up with one.
I arranged the reception section starting from the more "positive" comments to the more negative comment, while the retrospective coverage is ordered from a chronological perspective starting in the second line. The first line is more or less a summary as to how the game is viewed nowdays. Reception section is still a headcache for me when it comes to how it should be arranged and doing it regarding aspects of the game (i.e. visuals, sound, gameplay, etc.) is even more headcache-inducing. So, i work and do what i can on this aspect. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
The gameplay section is also still confusing. This is my suggestion, thinking in terms of WP:PYRAMID style, and putting the section in order of what best summarizes the gameplay.
Gameplay
First: Essentials of play
Club Drive is a racing simulation game. 
The story takes place at a car-friendly amusement park, which opened to cars after Dr. Lawrence Phosphorus developed algorithms to create indestructible vehicles.
Gameplay consists of three modes (cut): Collect, Racing, and Tag.
Then describe the modes in one sentence each.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Middle: Areas
This is solid. This should come next.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Last: Modes and Gameplay
During races, the players can select multiple viewpoints and change music on the vehicle's radio.
The player can also enable a rewind function to replay mistakes.
Before each race, players also have the option to select between one or two players, and select their vehicle's color and speed.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
That should take us one step closer. Give the reception some more thought, to try to put similar comments together. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:Fourth pass done! I more or less arranged the gameplay section based on your suggestion and separated each review sentence into its own. I'll take a rest for today but i remain on stand-by for your comments. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
The gameplay section is lot better now. The reception section did get improved along the way, but it still needs some work. Let's see if we can get it in one or two more rounds.
Lead
"The premise takes place in 2098 at the Club Drive amusement park, where driving became legalized after being deemed illegal for safety reasons years prior due to the invention of indestructible vehicles which allowed the ban to be lifted. Gameplay consists of three modes for one or two players, each with their own adjustable ruleset." -> "The game is set in a car-friendly amusement park where players can engage in different modes like racing, tag, or item collecting. The game gives allows exploration of various themed arenas, with each mode featuring its own set of rules and objectives for competitive play." (Trying to summarize the essential gameplay at a level that is good for a summary.)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Much of the second paragraph is no longer supported in the body of the article, other than the lead developer. I'd say drastically cut it, or look for another way to sum up the development and release of the game. Not every development has a lot to say.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
"Club Drive garnered generally unfavorable reception; some critics commended the ability to explore within the environments, but others felt divided regarding the audio and two-player mode, while criticism was geared towards aspects such as the visuals and gameplay" -> "Journalists gave the game unfavorable reviews for its visuals and gameplay, with limited praise for its multiplayer and exploration."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
"By 1995, the game had sold 13,994 copies." -> This seems too specific for the lead, and we don't have enough context to know where its final sales landed.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
"In 2022, the game was included as part of the Atari 50 compilation." -> I think this should be cut too.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Body
"for one or two players " -> cut this (you say this later)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
"each with their own adjustable ruleset" -> cut this too
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
ST-Computer said the game was fun, but also gave it a review of 60%. Is that really a representative summary of the review?
The reception section needs more order and consistency, grouping more similar comments together. The three paragraphs faintly have some order, going from most generous (but still negative) to most critical (but still occasionally positive). It just becomes hard to follow after a point, like I'm reading several different opinions back to back. Some hated the gameplay. Some hated the visuals. And some hated both equally. There is no rhyme or reason.
For example, Game Informer praised the two-player mode. Super Game Power and GamesMaster at least gave the two-player mode some sort of consolation praise. (They were otherwise critical.)
Game Players, Video Games, VideoGames (no relation), Play Time, and Next Generation were mostly critical.
Computer and Video Games, Ultimate Future Games, and Atari Gaming Headquarters had some redeeming things to say about the graphics (and were otherwise critical).
GameFan, Gamepro, and MAN!AC had some praise for the concept of driving freely (and were otherwise critical).
Digital Press is sort of an outlier but might find a better place once the others are given more order.
"In 1995, VideoGames named it one of the worst games of 1994." -> "VideoGames named it one of the worst games of the year."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Is Seanbaby a reliable source?
Seanbaby, who also wrote for 1UP.com in addition to EGM, actually wrote his list of worst games for a EGM feature (https://archive.org/details/electronic-gaming-monthly-issue-150-january-2002/page/158/mode/1up), however Club Drive only appears in a extended edition over his webste and does not appear at all in the printed version of the article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
"neXGam called it "perhaps the worst Jaguar game ever"" -> could this be placed closer to the first sentence, since it would be on topic (but not totally identical) as one of the worst games of all time?
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
See if you can make some progress particularly with the reception and the lead. I see you putting in the work and this article will get there soon. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:Fifth pass done! OK, i rearranged the lead section and the reception section based on your suggestions so, hopefully these will stick the landing more or less. I'll be on stand-by for further comments. Roberth Martinez (talk) 23:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for sticking with it. The article is a lot better now and I feel we are very close.
Lead
" Club Drive was conceived by lead programmer Todd Powers and was" -> "Club Drive was conceived by lead programmer Todd Powers. The game was" (full stop)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
" modem's delay and eventual cancellation" -> "modem's cancellation" (don't need as much detail in the lead)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
" and has been cited as one of the" -> "with several journalists calling it one of the"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Body
In the reception, reverse the order of the first three reviews in the first major paragraph (after the mini-paragraph with the sales and summary):
The Game Informer review is short, and out of place as the first review. Move it to the end of the first paragraph, and use a direct quote: "This game will provide entertainment, particularly in the two-player split-screen mode"
Adjust the new first review (GamesMaster) accordingly.
The second review will flow nicely out of that one, talking about multiplayer features back-to-back.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
For the second paragraph, swap the order of the MAN!AC and GamePro reviews
This will make the common theme of praise for multiplayer more clear.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
The third paragraph opens with someone who praised the gameplay and disliked the visuals. Cut and paste this back to the end of the second paragraph, where you have another similar comment (decent gameplay, bad visuals).
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Move the "worst game of the year" comment from VideoGames to the end, since it flows nicely into the retrospective.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Edit it accordingly, or bring the previous sentence along for the ride by moving both to the end of the paragraph.
" with neXGam calling it "perhaps the worst Jaguar game ever"." -> ". neXGam also called it "perhaps the worst Jaguar game ever"." (full stop)
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
" In 2022, reviewing the Nintendo Switch version of Atari 50, IGN's Samuel Claiborn stated that "it's a pretty remarkable..." -> "In a 2022 review of Atari 50, IGN's Samuel Claiborn stated that Club Drive is "a pretty remarkable...""
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
"felt that the game did not seem like a good representation" -> "felt that the game was not a good representation"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
You've been really patient and diligent and I think that will get us to GA, or close to it with a few more quick edits. The Gameplay and Development sections are both really solid now, and the Reception has come a long way. Let's see how it all flows after this round of edits. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:Sixth pass done. Hey, no worries! I have other stuff to do inside and outside of the internet, just like you, so i do not have any hurry in taking this article to GA status as soon as possible. I want to tackle any article nice and slowly so everything goes smoothly in the end. After all, patience is a virtue! Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
I appreciate your positive attitude and your hard work. Giving this one more review, for the last loose ends.
"Journalists gave the title unfavorable reviews" -> "Journalists gave the game unfavorable reviews"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
"Collect is a score-based mode where victory is awarded to the first player to capture a specific amount of power balls scattered on the playfield" -> "Collect is a scored competition where the winner must capture a specific number of power balls from across the playfield."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
"cheat code in the select screen" -> "cheat code on the select screen"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
"established by former Atari Games staffers" -> "founded by former Atari Games staffers"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
"Club Drive was previewed at a 1993 press conference held by Atari..." → "Club Drive was previewed at several events, including a 1993 press conference held by Atari..."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
" unbearable" -> this isn't really encyclopedic language. Sometimes it's good to quote words like this, but there's a risk of overquoting. Maybe substitute a word like "difficult" or "frustrating".
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
"neXGam also called it "perhaps the worst Jaguar game ever" -> "In 2002, neXGam..."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
"In 2002, Game Informer regarded" -> "That same year, Game Informer regarded"
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
" but criticized its blocky polygonal graphics, cheesy music, and sound effects" -> "criticized its graphics, sound, and music."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
put "awful" in quotes, since it's directly attributed to the source, and not usual encyclopedic language.
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
"In 2024, Destructoid's Zoey Handley felt that the game was not a good representation of what the Jaguar is capable of." -> "In 2024, Destructoid's Zoey Handley wrote that the game failed to showcase the Jaguar's capabilities."
 Done -- Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Just some final fixes for accuracy, readability, and encyclopedic voice. I think that should be it. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:Seventh pass done! Alright, i'll be on stand-by for your final comments. Roberth Martinez (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks again for your hard work. This definitely meets WP:GA quality and I support promoting it. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
@Shooterwalker:Thank you for yet reviewing another Atari Jaguar article :D Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Any time. I'm around to review something else when you get to it. (Just might take some time depending on real life.) Shooterwalker (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)