Talk:R.C. Pro-Am

What year?

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)

The cartridge and titlescreen (PAL version) both say (c) Rare 1987 - so probably it was completed in 1987 and released in 1988? It wouldn't surprise me if most of the third-party sites hadn't exactly done their homework. Besides the inevitable delay waiting for Nintendo to authorise and manufacture copies, it wouldn't be the first time Rare sat on a title for market reasons, reputedly Knight Lore was finished before Underwurlde but held back despite being technically revolutionary. - ThomasHarte 16:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. copyright office lists the instruction booklet publication date as March, 1988. Additionally, the newsletter Computer Entertainer lists the release month as March, 1988. I think these sources are more reliable than third-party gaming websites. --Bmanocles (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Formatting

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)

I dont see what youre referring to. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:R.C. Pro-Am/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 22:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

First review by It Is Me Here

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: MOS:HASH – don't use #n; and anyway, #n and nth best clash I think radio controlled and nth best need to be hyphenated—but check There are numerous instances of word repetition, which makes the prose clumsy (not sure if it's sufficiently minor only for FA fail or bad enough for GA fail, but you ought to be made aware). For example: if a high enough score is obtained, players receive larger "High Score Trophies", and they receive the "Super Trophy" for achieving the highest score. If the game ends, and players reach a high enough score, they can record it on the game's high score table WP:COMMENT advises against excessive use of internal notes – I do not understand why you use them to explain what each section of the article is about The guideline is fairly vague, and if you think it helps, fine; just I don't see the need in it, as the comments just seem to be doing the work of the section headings
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	has been consistently appeared – has consistently appeared one of the best NES titles in its library – sounds awkward; I'm not sure the NES itself has a library per se; rephrase You might still want to wikilink library to somewhere appropriate (in which opponents can also collect) – Clause makes no sense to me: at the moment, it looks like something about opponents collecting (something?) from inside roll cages – but, overall, it does not make sense Consider roll cages, which, unlike the other pickups, opponents can also collect I'm not sure I know what rain squalls are – maybe it's me, but maybe you need to wikilink or rephrase The article uses US English (tire, Fall, April 15 [see WP:STRONGNAT], etc.), whereas the game seems to have been made in the UK; it might be more natural, therefore, to use British English for this article
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Fall 1987 – see WP:RELTIME (which is part of a MoS page which is necessary for GA) has been considered – WP:WEASEL, until you reference it (see 2b)
	2. Verifiable with no original research:	You use multiple references to refer back to what is essentially the same source, giving a misleading impression of having more sources than you actually do: it would be better to reference different pages from the same source using {{sfn}} In version 2, references 20, 21, 22 still look like they refer to the same printed document. I take it that 16, 25 and 26 refer to the same publication, but different issues thereof?
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Re. "Notes" and "References", both seem to be fine
	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).	The lead contains no citations whatsoever; and yet it contains the following elements which need to be referenced: Published opinion (multiple instances) I know about wikilawyering and IAR and all the rest of it, but I must insist here that WP:LEADCITE mentions not only quotations but "material that is challenged or likely to be challenged", and adds that there is not "an exception to citation requirements specific to leads"
	2c. it contains no original research.	Hard to tell, given the lack of referencing of the lead (addressing which adequately will solve both this problem and the weasel words issue, in my opinion)
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Follows gameplay-development-reception layout, but the development section is fairly minuscule. Development and reception could do with being split I see what you're saying, but I'll have to look for a second opinion come the next proper review
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Regarding the Sega Genesis version, does it really matter that the player spells out a different word to the original? Seems like trivia to me Having said which, looking at diff 1, it does look like you have removed a lot of the trivia that was present in previous versions of the article, so it's better than it was before I don't know – it still seems a bit CRUFTy to me; we'll see what the second-opinion person says
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Same as OR and WEASEL His criticisms were that the game does not have a two-player feature and that the instruction booklet did not adequately enough describe the gameplay or what any of the items do. – Now, the problem here in my opinion is that the position of the highlighted clause at the end of the sentence, coupled with the bluntness of the language employed in that clause, makes the overall tone of the sentence comical (à la, say, The doctor noted that the patient's main symptoms were clamminess of skin, loss of appetite, and the fact that someone had sawn both his legs off.)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article has changed a lot recently (looking at diff 1), but nothing that looks like an edit war
	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.	Second image (the screenshot) could do with a more descriptive caption (see Guitar Hero (video game) or something)
	7. Overall assessment.	See you in a week. I might come back and offer more advice if I notice anything else.

Response

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)

1. OK
2. In that case, in which should be which – the in is not needed in that sentence and confuses matters
3. Well, I did say "might"—this article could easily be argued not to have a "strong" national tie—your call

It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 00:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

(trying to find a better way to organize communication here, so bear with me)

1:

• I should have taken care of all the issues in #1 proper. As far as WP:COMMENT is concerned, I've been doing that lately as a useful guide how each section is broken down by paragraph. I mean, if it's that much of an eyesore in the editing interface, I can remove it.

1a:

• Normally "<console> library" is a common term to describe all video games for a certain console – it's virtually the same as saying "a record library". I have tweaked it to "...listed as one of the best titles in the NES library" to get rid of the ambiguity I accidentally created there with the misplaced antecedent.
• I moved the clause outside of its parenthetical and included the "which" as you recommended directly above.
• "Squall" is now wikilinked.
• I've already mentioned above my oppose to going to British English, as it's not necessary.

1b:

• "Fall 1987" is actually what it says on these periodicals; the first few issues of Nintendo Fun Club News were released quarterly and were dated by season. Especially when the magazine does not specify a month of publication, you can't just put any month in there, as you would go against what the source says.
• I changed that sentence in the lead to: Listed by video game reviewers as one of Rare's first successful NES titles, R.C. Pro-Am received much praise for its graphics, sound, gameplay, and enjoyability. This should more reflect what the sources and the article's main body say.

2:

• I have added reflinks to the said references. I mean, the big things are trying to point to readers exactly where you got the information from (i.e. listing page numbers) and avoiding repetition. That being said, the format of shorthand citations are simple enough that usage of the {{sfd}} template should not be necessary (and I think they're all formatted correctly).

Another question, as I always seem to get differing opinions from others about what to do in this instance. Would it be better if I made a "Notes" section for the automatically-generated references and then a "References" section for the two manuals? Some people prefer that, while others don't. Thoughts?

2b:

• The lead is supposed to be repeating (in summary form) what the main body of the article says, and unless quotes are being used, requiring citations in the lead is redundant. Sometimes, summarizing what multiple sources say about something (i.e. the very last sentence in the lead) is necessary for brevity reasons, as you don't want readers to lose interest. That being said, if I wrote down anything that has not been repeated in the lead, let me know; I know there was that one you already mentioned, which I hopefully got.

3a:

• That one paragraph is all there basically is with regards to development and release. To me, it doesn't make sense to split one short paragraph off into its own section, when it can be combined into another one (which was what I did). Moreover, don't expect to find too much else coverage on development, as this is a 1987 NES game, in which there was no Internet back then; that's why the article relies a lot on print sources – many of which were not interested in interviewing developers, going into details, etc. are concerned (unlike today, in which the video game industry more mirrors the film industry).

3b:

• I feel it should be mentioned, if only to eliminate confusion between the two versions. I mean, I considered combining the different features in Championship Pro-Am into the gameplay paragraphs of R.C. Pro-Am by using parentheticals to point out differences, instead of having the current paragraph. For example, I could have done this:

If players can successfully spell "NINTENDO" (or "CHAMPION" in the Genesis version[citation]) by collecting enough bonus letters,...

However, I don't know if that would confuse readers more or not, though it might make that section more concise. Thoughts?

4:

• I removed that clause altogether, as it was fairly redundant anyways (I mean, describing what items do is equivalent to describing gameplay).

5:

• Should all be in the process of improving the article towards GA :)

6:

• I'm going to try and find a better image which has more stuff on the screen, so that readers can better get a grasp on what is going on in the game. That should be accompanied eventually by a better caption as a result.

Changes just made with regards to the above at this diff [3]. –MuZemike 19:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the similar references in #2, they all are from different issues – just that many of them have the same page number(s) as the formats were identical across issues. –MuZemike 21:24, 18 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)

GA Fail

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 will probably ask for a reassessment of the GA nomination, as I was gone this past weekend, and somebody else was doing the improvements. I still disagree with the requirement that everything in the lead (except quotes) be cited, as WP:LEADCITE says.

Moreover, I disagree that this must be written in British English (otherwise, every article in Category:Rareware games would also need to be rewritten in British English, and that doesn't make sense given the audience). However, I won't dispute that as hard, but it is going to make it harder for me to do improvements to the article as a result. –MuZemike 16:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You will notice that I had dropped my GB English request/suggestion after you gave reasons not to use it; the template was added by someone else. However, the very addition of such a template, and consequent disagreement about the article that it implies, detracts from criterion 5, if anything. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user who made all the "drive-by changes" to the article (including the British English and virtually making the prose worse), has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of 1007D (talk · contribs), so I don't think we're going to be hearing from him anytime soon. I plan to list for a reassessment once I replace the image with a better one (hopefully tonight, when I can get a hold of an emulator to take screenshots). –MuZemike 21:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with it, although I'm not going to participate in the second review since, as I'm sure you can appreciate, having me review the same article twice may be an exercise in futility: better to have a fresh pair of eyes look at it. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:R.C. Pro-Am/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

See also: Talk:R.C. Pro-Am/GA1

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:

• The desire of having everything in the lead cited; I disagreed, pointing at WP:LEADCITE, which doesn't require citations (except quotes) of anything that is already cited in the article's main body. The lead should summarize what is said in the article, which is a reflection of what the sources give.
• Whether or not the fact that, in the Sega Genesis version of the game, players need to spell "CHAMPION" to upgrade their car is relevant to the article or not. I disagreed, saying it was relevant as it differs from the NES version (where "NINTENDO" is spelled).

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)

• Support - it's a fine article, and I absolutely agree with both of your points listed. I was bummed when I saw that it failed. Tough break with the sock. --Teancum (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
• Its been over a month with no comments, but with one person supporting it being a good article, its as equal as an actual review. I'm promoting it. GamerPro64 21:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Vehicular combat claim

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)

Perspective

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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019205408/http://www.1up.com/features/top-25-nes-games?pager.offset=2 to http://www.1up.com/features/top-25-nes-games?pager.offset=2

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)