R.C. Pro-Am 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. | ||||||||||||||||
R.C. Pro-Am is part of the Rare Replay series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
Trebled article size- included pickups, obstacles, attributes, winning/losing section, and external links. Added Infobox. There seems to be a disagreement as to when the game was published. Every third-party website has it coming out in the US in '87, but Rare's website only has '88. Scytheml 03:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone do something about the huge space gap caused by the contents section being pushed down (and possibly having something to do with the second screenshot)? Scytheml 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: It Is Me Here t / c 22:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Initially reviewing version i version; now, version ii. Linked here are the diffs/permanent versions referred to below, but which can't be displayed in the table without breaking it for some reason: 1, 2.
Here is my advice:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | I will use these spaces (i.e. the ones for "1" rather than "1a" etc.) for comments which I feel generally fall into this category but which are probably not necessary for
GAN. In this case:
| |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: |
| |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. | See you in a week. I might come back and offer more advice if I notice anything else. |
I have so far corrected the MOS:HASH issue [1] and the one instance of "radio controlled" [2] that was inconsistent, anyways.
As far as the parenthetical, (in which opponents can also collect), would it make more sense if I moved that to right after "roll cage"? Basically, the roll cage item is the only item in the game in which opponents can also collect and use.
For the other comment, while the game was developed in the UK (as with all of Rare's games), the NES' main audience was North American (i.e. computers still reigned supreme in the UK in the late 80s/early 90s, and consoles were not readily available and were too expensive). In any case, I'm American, and I feel it would be unreasonable to expect to change to British English, even though I would be happy to accommodate if I ran into an article that was already written as such. – MuZemike 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(trying to find a better way to organize communication here, so bear with me)
1:
1a:
1b:
2:
2b:
3a:
3b:
If players can successfully spell "NINTENDO" (or "CHAMPION" in the Genesis version[citation]) by collecting enough bonus letters,...
4:
5:
6:
Changes just made with regards to the above at this diff [3]. – MuZemike 19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Did some more copyediting [4]. Hopefully I have addressed some of the redundant text brought up in #1. – MuZemike 22:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid I am going to have to fail the article. Whilst the referencing now seems good (as far as I can tell), after the recent spate of edits to it the quality of the writing seems to have gone down, not improved, with the article now containing simple spelling and grammar mistakes on top of the previous problem of awkward sentences (The player controls a radio-controlled car, and the object is to race against three opponents in order to qualify for the next track by finishing in the top three). Nor do I feel that the image issues have been adequately addressed. If you feel the review was in error, you can take matters up at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Feel free to resubmit the article for review once you feel that the highlighted problems have been addressed. It Is Me Here t / c 14:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for a GA reassessment per the previously failed GAN. Part of the previous fail was partly on my part (as I have been very busy the last few days), on the part of the reviewer, whom I have disagreed with parts of the assessment, and partly on blatant disruption caused by a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user that may have tanked the nomination.
The largest points of disagreement were the following:
I tried to clean up after the last 50 or so edits made by Anger-Cola ( talk · contribs) (who was later indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of 1007D ( talk · contribs)), who basically did made a series of "drive-by edits" and made the article's prose even worse, not to mention attempted to change everything to British English, which is not necessary; that there helped tank the previous GAN.
All being said above, I feel the problems have been adequately addressed and that the article meets the relevant GA criteria for this to pass, and as such, I am requesting a reassessment of the article. – MuZemike 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I just reworded part of this article that claimed this game was one of the first to feature vehicular combat style gameplay. This claim was unsourced, and from just a cursory glance at this list, a game that came out in 1988 can hardly be called one of the first. 66.18.219.221 ( talk) 13:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The game is presented in an isometric perspective, not overhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.154.65 ( talk) 23:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on R.C. Pro-Am. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
R.C. Pro-Am 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. | ||||||||||||||||
R.C. Pro-Am is part of the Rare Replay series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Trebled article size- included pickups, obstacles, attributes, winning/losing section, and external links. Added Infobox. There seems to be a disagreement as to when the game was published. Every third-party website has it coming out in the US in '87, but Rare's website only has '88. Scytheml 03:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Can someone do something about the huge space gap caused by the contents section being pushed down (and possibly having something to do with the second screenshot)? Scytheml 20:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: It Is Me Here t / c 22:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Initially reviewing version i version; now, version ii. Linked here are the diffs/permanent versions referred to below, but which can't be displayed in the table without breaking it for some reason: 1, 2.
Here is my advice:
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | I will use these spaces (i.e. the ones for "1" rather than "1a" etc.) for comments which I feel generally fall into this category but which are probably not necessary for
GAN. In this case:
| |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: |
| |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
| |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). |
| |
2c. it contains no original research. |
| |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
| |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. |
| |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. |
| |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. |
| |
7. Overall assessment. | See you in a week. I might come back and offer more advice if I notice anything else. |
I have so far corrected the MOS:HASH issue [1] and the one instance of "radio controlled" [2] that was inconsistent, anyways.
As far as the parenthetical, (in which opponents can also collect), would it make more sense if I moved that to right after "roll cage"? Basically, the roll cage item is the only item in the game in which opponents can also collect and use.
For the other comment, while the game was developed in the UK (as with all of Rare's games), the NES' main audience was North American (i.e. computers still reigned supreme in the UK in the late 80s/early 90s, and consoles were not readily available and were too expensive). In any case, I'm American, and I feel it would be unreasonable to expect to change to British English, even though I would be happy to accommodate if I ran into an article that was already written as such. – MuZemike 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(trying to find a better way to organize communication here, so bear with me)
1:
1a:
1b:
2:
2b:
3a:
3b:
If players can successfully spell "NINTENDO" (or "CHAMPION" in the Genesis version[citation]) by collecting enough bonus letters,...
4:
5:
6:
Changes just made with regards to the above at this diff [3]. – MuZemike 19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Did some more copyediting [4]. Hopefully I have addressed some of the redundant text brought up in #1. – MuZemike 22:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I am afraid I am going to have to fail the article. Whilst the referencing now seems good (as far as I can tell), after the recent spate of edits to it the quality of the writing seems to have gone down, not improved, with the article now containing simple spelling and grammar mistakes on top of the previous problem of awkward sentences (The player controls a radio-controlled car, and the object is to race against three opponents in order to qualify for the next track by finishing in the top three). Nor do I feel that the image issues have been adequately addressed. If you feel the review was in error, you can take matters up at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Feel free to resubmit the article for review once you feel that the highlighted problems have been addressed. It Is Me Here t / c 14:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I am nominating this for a GA reassessment per the previously failed GAN. Part of the previous fail was partly on my part (as I have been very busy the last few days), on the part of the reviewer, whom I have disagreed with parts of the assessment, and partly on blatant disruption caused by a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user that may have tanked the nomination.
The largest points of disagreement were the following:
I tried to clean up after the last 50 or so edits made by Anger-Cola ( talk · contribs) (who was later indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of 1007D ( talk · contribs)), who basically did made a series of "drive-by edits" and made the article's prose even worse, not to mention attempted to change everything to British English, which is not necessary; that there helped tank the previous GAN.
All being said above, I feel the problems have been adequately addressed and that the article meets the relevant GA criteria for this to pass, and as such, I am requesting a reassessment of the article. – MuZemike 16:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I just reworded part of this article that claimed this game was one of the first to feature vehicular combat style gameplay. This claim was unsourced, and from just a cursory glance at this list, a game that came out in 1988 can hardly be called one of the first. 66.18.219.221 ( talk) 13:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The game is presented in an isometric perspective, not overhead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.154.65 ( talk) 23:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on R.C. Pro-Am. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)