SSX 3 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 26, 2015 Good article nominee Listed April 12, 2015 Peer review Reviewed May 31, 2015 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation) (13 participants) Covet Fashion (4 participants) Vector TDx (2 participants) Fred Haslam (game designer) (3 participants) SureAI (9 participants; relisted) Mighty Rabbit Studios (2 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Pokémon Emerald (discussion) Home video game console generations (discussion) HoYoverse (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates List of generation IX Pokémon (nom) Mario Party: The Top 100 (nom) Good article nominations Donkey Kong (start) Puff-puff (onomatopoeia) (start) Gengar (nom) Leifang (nom) Barry Burton (start) Tina Armstrong (start) Birdo (nom) Shin Megami Tensei V (nom) Alex Thach (nom) Justin Yu (start) Theatrhythm Final Fantasy: Curtain Call (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (start) Miner 2049er (start) Pokémon Sword and Shield (start) Portal Stories: Mel (nom) Pixel Piracy (start) Ether One (start) Yoshi's New Island (nom) Dr Disrespect (start) Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass (start) Async Corp. (start) The King of Fighters '99 (nom) Hotline Miami (start) DYK nominations No did you know nominations Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (nom) Pokémon Channel (nom) The Sims 4 (rev) Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (nom) A Space for the Unbound (rev) Articles that need... assessment (0) (0) reassessment (0) cleanup (7) infoboxes (33) cover art (248) screenshots (8,823) photos (66) translation from japan (191) creation merging

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: "The 36 Best PS2 Games". GamePro. IDG. October 26, 2010. Archived from the original on December 25, 2010.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll finish this one by tomorrow. Thanks, ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. 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:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• "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

• 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]