# Talk:SSX 3

Stop deleting them please.

While the soundtrack may be ok (if it's actually been released separately, I'm not sure), the list of characters is total WP:GAMECRUFT. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Will go halves with you, will axe the characters but the soundtrack is very useful for people. User:Alexcason 23:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Em, no. The characters are definitely WP:GAMECRUFT, the soundtrack is probably so. Like I said maybe having a list of songs on the actual released soundtrack (like the Mario Galaxy article) is ok. A list of "songs that are in the game" is not. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention about him? and the fact that he mentioned what you were doing in the game? Because now, he's in other games as well.[[User:SonicNiGHT|SonicNiGHT]] (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone else think this was a fictional drink and think that the appearance of it in this game was some kind of marketing ploy?Brando26000 (talk) 21:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see various things wrong with this article:

 As pointed out above, the list of characters may be considered WP:GAMECRUFT and could be deleted. The other information in the Characters section could be moved to Gameplay.  Decided to delete it; I expect someone will be irritated about this. How I see it, it only benefits fans of the game. This article is meant to also be able to teach people who are new to SSX 3, and a list of names isn't going to be able to further explain how the controls work or how tricks are executed. I have moved useful information from the section into Gameplay.
 The gameplay section is written in an exaggerated and maybe even opinionated manner, i.e. "The reward system is also revamped and improved." doesn't leave much room for people to have their own opinions on whether it's improved or not.  I have now rewritten the gameplay section
 Reception needs expanding with a general idea of what critics liked and disliked, plus individual reviews  Done!
 A development section should be created  Added
BlookerG talk 01:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Came here from the reassessment tag; upgrading this article to B-class. I'd add to your list that gameplay gets a little too detailed in spots, and repetative- you discuss the order of the races in two paragraphs in a row (the one with the image, and the one after it). --PresN 18:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Welp, I've completed my list. I'm going to go ahead and nominate the article for GA status. BlookerG talk 01:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:SSX 3/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 22:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll finish this one by tomorrow. Thanks, ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 


### Initial comments
"SSX 3 (Snowboard Super Cross 3) is an extreme snowboard racing game" - why extreme here? Is extreme the actual name of the sport or is it a category? It would breach formality if it wasn't
"It is the third installment in the SSX series, and is THX approved" - is it the first instalment in the series (or any video game, as I think THX was introduced not long before this release) that is THX approved? Might be worth noting
The real concern here is the lack of broadness in the lead section - at the moment there is nothing on the development or reception mentioned in the lead section. In order to comply per WP:LEAD the lead must summarise all sections of the article. This shouldn't be too hard to achieve
"Events fall under two categories: Race and freestyle" - should 'freestyle' be capitalised too?
NBA Street Vol. 2 is liked twice in Development
"after the release of the previous title in the series, SSX Tricky" - no link for this?
I would strongly recommend cutting down the list in the Soundtrack section (the prose at the bottom) as it is slightly overlinked and list-y which goes against the GA criteria. The section is also unreferenced
"Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating in the 0-100 range" - I wouldn't think there's any need to explain that Metacritic gives a score between 0-100, assuming that the reader already knows this
"Eurogamer's Tom Bramwell called the new "super-uber" tricks " - Tom Bramwell of Eurogamer is already introduced above


#### References
Toolserver shows no dead links
This link didn't work for me, it was included in the toolserver but I could not find it in the article?
The last two refs (40 and 41) have different date formats compared to the others which all have y-m-d formats


### On hold
With some work this article could have a chance of passing this GAN. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, please let me know when you have all. Thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 23:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


### Close - promoted
The article has improved sigificantly thanks to your edits, and also thanks to you letting me know on my talk page (for clarification), this article now meets the GA criteria. It is broad, well written, comprehensive and all the references are in working order. Everything here complies per VG standards and the GA criteria, so I'll promote this. Good luck if you ever plan on FACing.  ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)