Talk:R.C. Pro-Am II/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Rhain1999 (talk · contribs) 05:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This is a really nice article, but there are a few things that I've pointed out for your consideration.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The rationale for File:RCProAm2.jpg seems a bit weak.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Almost there.
 * The rationale for File:RCProAm2.jpg seems a bit weak.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Almost there.

It's a shame that this article is so short, but I guess that's down to the limited sourcing. You've done a great job with the information available; just a few minor changes, and it should be good to go. I'll put this on hold for a week or two; let me know if you need more time. – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 05:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC) Great work with this, as per usual. Good luck with the rest of your crazy Rare Replay topic too; you're in the home stretch now! In terms of expanding the articles, anyway; you've still got quite a few GANs left to go before it's all completely done and dusted. Speaking of which, you might see my name pop up for reviewing some of them in the near future... – Rhain1999  (talk to me) 06:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "in Europe a year later" gives the impression that it was released in December 1993, but this is not the case. Consider revising.
 * Is the quote from Retro Gamer really necessary in the lead? I don't mind if it stays, but I can't help but feel that it doesn't need to be there. Let me know.
 * I acknowledge that the game is 23 years old, and the sources are quite scarce, but is there really no development information about the game? Ultimately, I trust your judgement, because I know you always do excellent, thorough research, but it's a shame that there's not more information out there.
 * I was going to suggest moving the screenshot to the "Gameplay" section, but I guess the short size of the article warrants its placement in the "Reception" section.
 * Is it necessary to mention that Official Nintendo Magazine and Retro Gamer are "UK-based".
 * "Official Nintendo Magazine (known in 1992 as Nintendo Magazine System) praised..." – I find the clarification a little unnecessary; I suggest writing it as "Nintendo Magazine System praised...".
 * Is it possible to add Video game reviews template to "Reception"? I don't have access to any of the reviews, so I can't tell if there are actually scores or not, but I thought I'd mention it.
 * Date format for Reference #5 is inconsistent.
 * , thanks for the review and good points! I believe I've addressed them all, if you'll take a look. I usually write articles from scratch but this one was in good condition so I fixed it up. It's possible that dev info is buried in a print magazine somewhere, but I didn't find any leads online. And all of the interviews online were about the Nintendo 64 version. I'd be happy to add a dev section if anyone were to find sources... There weren't enough scores to justify the Reception template. It is a bit shorter than the average video game article, but consider also that the sources covered the stuff we care about in less depth (if we can even still find the trade magazines at all). Thanks again for the review – czar   18:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you appreciated the review. Thanks for addressing those points so quickly and professionally. Also, I appreciate the clarification regarding the lack of sources about development and reviews. Hopefully, someone will eventually dig through their old magazine collection and find some decent articles about it. But, for now, everything looks good to me! Here you go:.