Talk:R.C. Pro-Am/GA2

Latest comment: 12 years ago by GamerPro64 in topic GA Reassessment

GA Reassessment

edit

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

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)Reply