# Talk:Ridge Racer Revolution

Came here via the reassessment request in the talk page template; bumping this up to C-class. Some ideas for improvement follow:

This article only just makes it to C-class; it has some structural issues and doesn't have enough content to be a B
History section should be split into "Development" and "Reception"
You really don't need to cite 5 different sources for a single sentence, multiple times. Multiple cites are used when you are citing two different bits of information, or if the sentence is contentious enough that it needs extra validation; "being able to select the time of day (unlockable)" is neither, for example.
Take out the underscore in the see also link in Gameplay
Remember to italicize games like Ridge Racer and Galaxian
It's generally bad form to have single- or two-sentence paragraphs; instead, combine multiple small paragraphs into logical groupings of 4-8 sentences.
Development/Reception need more content, especially reception- you have sources in the table that aren't used in the prose, and vice-versa.
There's information in the lead (sequels/re-releases) that aren't present in the article body, and the lead in turn doesn't summarize the development/reception sections. --PresN 15:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
@PresN:Thanks for your suggestions on how to improve the article. I'm pleased that after years as Stub-class it has reached C-class; I was afraid the lack of content on development and reception might have prevented that. Which brings me to my point; I simply cannot find much information online about them. I suppose I could add the reception stuff from MobyGames, but I wouldn't be able to cite any of it, as I don't have any reliable sources. They were originally separate sections, but I felt that as there's so little information it wasn't worth them having their own sections. I've put the citations at the end of each paragraph, is this a better way of doing it? I'm also not really sure how to put some of the stuff in the lead section into the article body. Also, how do I put Absolute PlayStation and Coming Soon Magazine into the table? Adam9007 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

No, end of the sentence is much better than end of the paragraph. What I meant was, take this sentence: "The game consists of 3 courses: "Novice," "Intermediate" and "Expert", with each one having different sections of the track opened.[2][3][4][5][10][6]". You have 6 different sources for that 1 sentence. Really? Do you really need 6 sources to cite such a simple idea? Surely the first one- the game manual- covers the entire thing; or at most maybe you need a second citation for the "with each one" clause. The sentence should read "The game consists of 3 courses: "Novice," "Intermediate" and "Expert", with each one having different sections of the track opened.[2]". You don't need to put every single citation that could potentially cover that sentence at the end, just enough to cover it.
"The game was re-released in Japan for the PlayStation The Best range on 27 June 1997,[1][7] and for the Platinum Range in PAL regions the following year. [...] Ridge Racer Revolution was followed by a sequel, Rage Racer, which was released in 1996 in Japan,[8] and 1997 in North America and PAL regions.[9]" These sentences, or something like them, should be in the article body as well as the lead. The first sentence can go in development (or History, as you have it now), while the second would go at the end of Reception (or, again, History). The citations would go with them; you shouldn't have citations in the lead, because you shouldn't have anything in the lead that isn't also present in the article body- and cited there instead.
As per {{Video game reviews}}, to add in a source that doesn't have an easy shorthand already, you would do for example "|rev1=Absolute PlayStation" and "|rev1Score=3 / 5".
Yeah, it can be hard to find information for a) 90s games or earlier and b) games developed in Japan; you have both here. There are some bits that you're obviously missing, though- in the reception table you have reviews from GameSpot and EGM (cited), and Famitsu (uncited); none of these reviews are really used in the text. They absolutely should be- the GameSpot and EGM reviews are now present, but you don't have much beyond the scores. The GameSpot one alone is 4 paragraphs; there's got to be more that you can pull out beyond a score and "a clone of the original". --PresN 03:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@PresN:I have 4 guides for the game and I didn't know which one to cite where, so I cited all of them everywhere I could. I'm hoping the citations are okay now. I'm a bit wary of taking more quotes for the reception part in case I violate copyright. Thanks for the suggestions. I used some of them to improve Ridge Racer too; I'm trying to get that up to GA class. Adam9007 (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Me again, for the new reassessment request. Bumping it up to B, thoughts follow:

Huh, not a citation style I usually see, but seems consistent
The Electric Playground review sentence goes on and on, and should be cut into parts.
Similarly, the reception section should be cut into two paragraphs. It's hard to know how to cut it up with the "by-reviewer" style, which is why the general method is to break it up by graphics/gameplay/whatever, and then discuss what each reviewer/several of the reviewers said about each area. If you don't want to do that, maybe there's a way to group the reviews by theme or subject
Even if it's largely the same as the original game, it's generally best to discuss what exactly that means, even if in a summarized form.
The article as a whole could use a copy-edit for flow- there's a lot of choppy sentences that don't seem to flow together well, though they're not grammatically incorrect
Overall it's getting close to ready for GAN; it's a shame there isn't more content, but you have the sources you have, and it is a plot-less racing game. --PresN 17:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
@PresN: Thanks. What's wrong with the citations? I think I've done what you suggested about sentences and flow, but I'm not entirely sure what belongs in quotes and what doesn't in the gameplay section. I'm also not sure if I've done GamePro right; there doesn't seem to be an overall score. As for this being a bestseller in the UK, I've looked through the cited source and cannot find where it says that. There's a chapter about Namco which includes the PlayStation and Ridge Racer, but no mention of this being a bestseller here in the UK as far as I can tell (maybe I'm not looking hard enough?). Do I need to translate the Japanese guide book titles? Adam9007 (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Nothing is wrong with the cites, I just more often see the style at e.g. Galaxy Game where the page numbers are in references and the source is split out.
Quotes around game terms seems to be a personal thing, I've seen it both ways
I think average of the 4 GamePro scores is fine, especially as they're all the same
Well, if it's not in the source, then I guess it should be removed
You don't have to; it may be convenient for English readers, but the title is what it is
Though I notice a string of numbers at the end of the last 2 sources; don't know what they are, as for magazine's I'd expect to see ISSNs --PresN 17:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@PresN: It's far more convenient to use the rp template if I'm going to be citing different pages of the same book multiple times. As for the bestseller bit, I think I've found where it says that (I missed it last time), but I'm not 100% sure exactly what it means. It says something about top 10 PlayStation sales and this game is at the top of the list. I've found another review, but I'm not sure if the reception section as a whole has enough quotations. As for the ID numbers, I don't know what they are; they don't say ISSN, so I used id. Is this ready for GA? Is the prose brilliant and engaging enough? Adam9007 (talk) 01:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Turns out it's the UPC/barcode for that issue, which... isn't actually an ID that gets used anywhere. I've put in the ISSNs instead. And yeah, I'm sure you'll get comments and have fixes to make for a GAN, but I think at this point you might as well give it a shot and see what happens. --PresN 01:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@PresN: I was going to ask how you got the ISSNs but I think I've figured it out. It's the same for every issue isn't it? Adam9007 (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, an ISSN is the id number associated with an entire magazine. Any magazine archive system, like a library or Worldcat, uses it as a unique identifier, since magazine names can change and overlap with other magazines in different times and regions. It's the same idea as an ISBN for a book. --PresN 02:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ridge Racer Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 01:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello User:Adam9007, I will be reviewing this article. For starters the it looks to be in very good shape so I'll pass it to GA when some of my doubts are cleared. Now let's do it:

The lead is in good shape but I would split it per WP:Lead to two paragraphs starting from like "The game borrows most of its soundtrack from Ridge Racer 2. Ridge Racer Revolution..."
In gameplay "although the drifting style is from Ridge Racer 2" what does that mean? I haven't played these racing games so I don't understand it (and with it casual readers).
The development section uses one paragraph (which I don't think should be divided) but only uses three sources at the end. This feels like some sentences require citations but if you believe it is okay I don't mind.
Finally, the reception section has one paragraph made of only one sentence. Maybe Hugh Sterbakov's comment could be moved to the first paragraph's last reference which mentions something like "Hugh Sterbakov was more critical..."
Those are all my doubts. Nice work Adam.Tintor2 (talk) 01:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@Tintor2:

I've split the lead as suggested.
Good.
I've never played Ridge Racer 2, but the source says "the drift feeling is like Ridge Racer 2". Hopefully my rewording will make it easier to understand.
I see
Three sources? There's only one, and it's the only info I've been able to find about the game's development. The two pages support the entire paragraph.
I see.
I'm not sure if I can put the criticism there without interrupting the flow. I can't have several positives, one negative, and several more positives; it needs to be organised somehow. I've split the sentence in two.
Good
Another thing; is the GameRankings source necessary? Adam9007 (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

No, GameRankings' site only has 4 reviews. Passing the review. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources composer biographies from vgmonline are not reliable, so should that be removed? (it's better than Mobygames at any rate). Also, the booklet Staff page says they're supervisors for the album. Is that a reliable indication of their involvement in the game's soundtrack? Pinging DrDevilFX as he's been involved with this. Adam9007 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC)