Talk:Rad Racer/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Namcokid47 (talk · contribs) 19:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can already tell by looking at it that it needs some work, but it might not be an immediate fail. Expect comments soon. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 19:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namcokid47: That would be welcome news, as I showed with your helpful intro expansion tags, I can work relentlessly when given the opportunity :) So if there are problems, I can probably remedy them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Judgesurreal777: - I apologize, but I don't think this meets the GA criteria at this time. Here are my concerns.

The Japanese title should be a footnote and not actually specified in the text. In addition, saying it was "originally released in Japan as Highway Star" doesn't make sense because it was always referred to by that name over there.
Lots and lots of poor writing in areas. There's weird sentences like: "Many comparisons to arcade game Out Run, were made", "Players can choose between two types of car to race", and "since the game was not programmed to display single sprites, but was drawn line by line, So Gebelli came several times a week to walk through exactly memorized schematics of how many pixels and what color the lines had to be to create roads."
Is there a reason we need a screenshot of the 3D mode specifically? What is it supposed to convey?
Who is Nasir Gebelli? He hasn't been properly introduced in the body of the article.
There shouldn't be any review scores in the text, I don't know why they're present here.
The reception is a laundry dump of comments by other reviewers, with nothing done to connect them with each other. It's also got more poor writing and weird word choices; you don't "note" criticism, for instance.
References aren't consistent with their date structure.
Why do we need the Classic Game Room reviews?

This needs a lot of work if it wants to be a GA. In addition to this, I'd really try and slow down on your nominations. I know this is due to the Square Enix WikiProject trying to get to their goal of having most Squeenix pages be GAs, but it seems rather obvious you're rushing these to completion and not taking the time to make sure it follows the criteria. That's not acceptable for GANs. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer if you not review any more of my Good Article nominations @Namcokid47:, I have not had anyone else autofail my nominations almost ever except for you. I am able to correct most issues that are found during review, and you do not allow that option. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current state does not meet the first of the good article criteria (GAC) ("It is well written"). Because it doesn't meet all six criteria, I decided to fail the nomination. It's one thing to have minor errors here and there, but this article has so many problems with it that I cannot believe you think I'd sit here and pinpoint every facet wrong with it. You should have made a check before nominating this that the article meets all six criteria, or by having somebody peer-review or copyedit it. This looks like something you rushed together, and I find it real disrespectful of you to try and shovel the blame onto me here. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 23:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]