Talk:Rad Racer

Comment

Criscih: Please do not write over my edits to the text without motivation. The intro text is still very POV, and the images should not all be at the bottom of the article like they are now.

If you place a note here when you're "finished" with the article, I can take it upon myself to do some NPOV cleanup. I don't want to risk that you overwrite the work again.

Even though you somewhat addressed the points I brought up on your user page, the rest of the text is still not neutral ("awesome music", for example), and the text still reads as a game tutorial / instruction booklet. In an encyclopedia, one should rarely address the reader as "you".

David Remahl 17:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

comment concerning 3-d glasses

I own the game the NES and a pair of the original packaged 3D glasses and have found them to be more of a gimmick than an actual 3D component to the game, I have editted the article accordingly. Drfool 23:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

World Record Holders

Is there any reason the original posting of the Twin Galaxies World Record was omitted? The game was popular both at the time and in today's competitive gaming circles, and unless you want to strike TwinGalaxies' existence from Wikipedia for a lack of notability, it's at least worth having a discussion over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.60.178 (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sales

Rad Racer was a big hit with North American audiences, selling about 2,000,000 copies in total. It was Square's best selling game on the NES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.247.2 (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo World Championship

I'm stunned there's no mention of this being one of the three games on the (in)famous Nintendo World Championship cart. 68.13.130.204 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rad Racer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

I can already tell by looking at it that it needs some work, but it might not be an immediate fail. Expect comments soon. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 19:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@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)

@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. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

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)

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. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rad Racer/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk · contribs) 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll start the review soon after I'm done with Castle Wolfenstein.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok sounds good @Blue Pumpkin Pie: Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Is this still happening? Or should I just delete this review page so someone else can pick it up? --03:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for the severe long delay. I'm nearly done recovering. I do plan on reviewing this very very soon.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777: i just posted my review. There may be more that I can recommend, but this is what I have so far.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead

• it's unnecessary to distinguish between Famicom and NES. Nintendo Entertainment System is the name the system goes by outside of Japan. If it has an English release outside of Japan, then we should just call it an NES throughout the article. Unless for some reason there are differences because of the specs of the NES and Famicom, we won't need to make such a distinction in the future.

Gameplay

• no issues so far.

Development

• The credits in the infobox are more clear than in the development section.
• The main reason for the game's development was that Square owner Masafumi Miyamoto wanted to demonstrate newly hired and Apple II programmer Nasir Gebelli's 3D programming techniques.

^Was the game conceived by Masafumi Miyamoto or did Masafumi Miyamoto assigned Nasir to the game's development? it's hard to tell unfortunately because we don't have access to the source itself. If you have access, perhaps you can clarify.

• There's a lot of famous developers that were mentioned as part of the development but no specific role in the development, so they're not as vital. But since they are notable they shouldn't be removed either. I recommend just putting them all in a single sentence rather than having each section. Especially because if i keep digging into the source, some of the information contradicts itself.
• A lot of the programming details is at the bottom of the article, even though the core development is closely related to Nasir's work. So it may benefit moving it closer to Nasir's role in the development section. Try to keep a single topic together and not have it split off into a separate paragraph.
• The lead has release information but not reflected or verified anywhere in the article. This is very important for GA nomination.

Reception

• The first source says Rad racer is considered a premier racer but the source does not implicate that at all.
• I think Gamespot's commentary is a bit longwinded and can be simplified to a single sentence instead of three.

Fixes::

So, I cut the stuff in the lead that wasn't sourced, and the claims about the game being premier. I also found a source for the dates of release. I did see the source describing why the game was created and it just says that it was conceived to show off Gebelli's 3D skills. It was probably also done to compete with the other big racing game of the period, but no RS from Square say that LOL. I moved the programming info about what Gebelli did closer to the section about him as you requested. I also looked at consolidating the famous people with bit parts in the development, but I didn't see how to write it without being awkward. The sentences about their roles do site their little parts such as track creation, creating the ending, or being pulled to make the original Final Fantasy. Let me know what you think! @Blue Pumpkin Pie: Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777: I added a couple of issues specifically with the reception. I made some adjustments to the development section by briefly summarizing the staff in the first paragraph and adding their development involvement in the latter. Let me know if you agree/disagree with the current arrangement.

I managed to get a pdf of Next Generation issue 50 (ty Retromags), I read it as carefully as I could, and could not find any mention of Rad Racer's main reason for development being teaching Gibelli. However, there are other references that indicate how Gibelli got hired. If you want to implement that instead, that's fine. If you have another source that indicates that, I recommend adding it in. I'm wary of Nintendo Life's source as it directly links to Wikipedia. The most we can verify for the time being is that the game was released in 1987. IF that's it, I'm willing to support GA with just the year.

I don't know if you noticed but I also shared a video interview of Nasir on the talk page, if you think it can be useful.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

also, I see "arcade" listed in the platforms but no mention of it in the article.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Well thank you @Blue Pumpkin Pie:, I don’t have time at the present moment to listen to the three hour interview with Gebelli at this time, so let’s close this out for the time being and I can fix this up at a later date. This review will help the article someday get closer to GA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777: I wasn't going to close the GA over the source. Sorry if I made it seem it was detrimental to the GA process. What about the other concerns? They seem like they can be addressed. I'll do some more adjustments. I'm willing to keep it up for a little longer since we're so close.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: the other adjustments seem very doable, I’ll work on those. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Ok I like your adjustments and the link you posted is actually to the short 20 minute interview and I think I was able to mine two nuggets related to Rad Racer out of it. I also skimmed the three hour interview and got to the part chronologically where they discuss his early Square career and found one piece of info regarding Rad Racer, could be more but I doubt it. So, anything else? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I made some additional fixes. but I think it's worthy of GA now.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)