Talk:Road Rash II

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indrian (talk · contribs) 22:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I suppose it only makes sense to come back for the sequel. Substantive comments to follow soon. Indrian (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the wait; I took this on and then the world went haywire. Lets get this done!

Lead

• "The game is based on a series of road races" - "Based on" just feels weird here, because that phrase usually denotes when a property in one format is adapted to another format, like if the game play was based on real races or something. I would just choose a slightly different turn of phrase.
• "The development of Road Rash II was initiated" - Passive voice.

Gameplay

• "who must finish in third-place or higher" - Out of how many racers?
• "The game's races take place in a number of locales across the United States, including Hawaii, Arizona, Tennessee, Alaska, and Vermont." - Are these the only locales? I am guessing maybe they are if there are five races. "Including" implies additional locales to the one's listed. If this is all of them, a different word would be better.
• "The player can access a bike shop from the game's main menu to view bikes for sale and potentially purchase a new bike with the money they have accumulated." - I assume these bikes must be distinguished between each other somehow in their capabilities? The article mentions the nitrous oxide charges, but I am guessing there are other differences between bikes as well.

Overall, this article is quite good. Once a couple of turns of phrase are tweaked and a couple of gameplay elements are clarified, it will be ready for promotion. I will go ahead and place the nomination  On hold while these minor concerns are addressed. Once again, I appreciate your patience. Indrian (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No prob. Anyway, all points have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for yet another delay; I needed to read through the article carefully one more time. I made just a couple of light grammatical tweaks, and I am now ready to promote. Well done! Indrian (talk) 02:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Road Rash II is reportedly the first video game in which the player can beat, and get beaten, by a cop?
  • ALT1: ... that Road Rash II is reportedly "the first game in which you could actually beat, and get beaten, by a cop"? Source: Mitch Wallace (April 2017). "The Making of: The Road Rash Trilogy". Retro Gamer. No. 166. p. 24: "Road Rash 2 was the first game in which you could actually beat, and get beaten, by a cop," Arthur says."

Improved to Good Article status by Cat's Tuxedo (talk). Self-nominated at 03:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Sainsf (t · c) 17:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• The article says "Koch claimed that "Road Rash II was the first game in which you could beat, and get beaten, by a cop." The hook instead states the claim as a fact. Probably say "that Road Rash II was reportedly the first video game..." And why "was", isn't it still the first? Is ref 9 is the source as that is the closest ref after the fact? If so then it is apparently offline so AGF. You should put the appropriate source citation right next to the line where the hook fact is mentioned. Sainsf (t · c) 17:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

The citation should be put at the end of the line stating the fact. Sainsf (t · c) 17:49, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

There we go. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay what I meant was this [1] to make sure that the reader can locate the source of the fact easily right at the end of the line in the article, though what you have done just now, adding the source in the DYK nomination itself, is a good practice to help reviewers.

So this is good to go now. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 18:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Sainsf: the hook is copied from the source. Either it needs to be put in quotes, or different wording suggested. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Went with quoting it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you. Restoring the thread. Restoring tick for ALT1 per Sainsf's review. Yoninah (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)