Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/.hack (video game series)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:41, 26 July 2010 [1].

.hack (video game series)[edit]

.hack (video game series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)**

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through two separate peer reviews, one from the WP:VG community (link) and one from the Wikipedia community at large (link). I believe it represents featured article quality work. Comments and criticism welcome. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 09:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and request speedy close
  • I'm requesting this FAC be speedy closed as while the article has improved greatly over the course of the recent PRs (both WikiProject and general), it has not gone through reassement to make certain it meets most (if almost any) of the FAC criteria as it remains a start class article that has not been properly assessed on either WikiProject.陣内Jinnai 15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no real opinion on whether the article meets the FA criteria or not, but an article doesn't have to be assessed by a WikiProject in order to be at FAC. The article is clearly no longer start-class, and the fact that no WikiProject has changed the tag on the talk page doesn't make that any less true. Just my $0.02. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it was an improper jumping chain here as it went straight from a merger to a PR with some items unresolved, some of which, like prose quality and weight issues unresolved (just the 2 examples i can think of off the top of my head) are feature article criteria. That's why I'm stating that it should be.陣内Jinnai 15:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that is a perfectly reasonable rationale for your opposition to promotion. Having only glanced at the article, I can't say whether it's true or not, but a FAC review will definitely reveal the article's flaws. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go down the list:

  • well-written: at least, I think so. That's for the FAC reviewers to decide. If you can name any specific instances of less than brilliant prose, please bring them up.
    • Mentioned a few already and to be frank, the person who writes the prose should never be the one who decides ultimately if its fine without a thorough copyedit review. I would hold this standard even if you were a copy editor because its hard to see your own mistakes.陣内Jinnai 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, you have provided zero examples of unclear prose. In fact, I had a friend of mine (who does not have a Wikipedia account) copy edit the entire article as well and I've incorporated those changes. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comprehensive: it follows the structure of most video game FAs with complete coverage
  • well-researched: it is thoroughly cited with in-line references
    • There is some lacking of Famitsu scores. Yes one for Infection was found, but that's all.陣内Jinnai 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I included references for scores for Infection and Quarantine. GameStats also has Mutation's Famitsu scores, but I didn't feel it was necessary to list them for all the games, since it's just an unqualified number. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • neutral: again, I am of the opinion that it is, but please point out anything you notice
    • The Fragment section was mentioned by multiple reviewers as being inappropriate for this article as more than a summary statement. An alternative was also mentioned by myself.陣内Jinnai 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • One reviewer objected to the merge and couldn't come up with a convincing reason why, after multiple inquiries. As the article stands now, the mention of fragment IS just a summary, because that's all there is. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • stable: I'm the only editor working on this article and I've strived to respond to all criticisms at PR and FAC. I felt that the PR discussions were getting mired in WP:POINTy behavior so I took it to FAC to get a wider opinion on the quality of the article, as well as move it along the improvement process
    • That in and of itself is WP:POINTYy and not the appropriate manner in which to deal with it.陣内Jinnai 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • FAC is the next step in article evolution. Very few articles enter FAC fully grow as FAs. Rather, reviewers point out issues with the article (much like peer review) and help it improve and ultimately decide whether it's good enough to be FA at the end. As for closing the peer review, as the nominator, I felt that my concerns were addressed and I felt ready to take the article to FAC, which is a legitimate course of action, according to WP:PR#How to remove a request. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • a lead: it has one; reviewers can tell me if it's good or not
    • While it mentions the gameplay, it lacks any info on the storyline.陣内Jinnai 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the second paragraph of the lead is entirely devoted to storyline. Is that not enough? Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • appropriate structure: it follows the form of many video game FAs
  • consistent citations: citations follow consistent form
  • Images. It only has two (non-free) images which I believe are vital to depicting the subject and cannot be replaced with text alone
    • File:Dothack gameplay.jpg could use a more thorough reasoning than just the multiple one-word statements which don't provide context.陣内Jinnai 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fair use rationale for that image is perfectly legitimate and there are no "one-word statements" in it, aside from "portion used" and "low resolution", which are supposed to be answered that way. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Length. I believe it's of appropriate length.

Based on my own assessment, I think it's ready to undergo the FAC process. If you have any specific and actionable objections, please bring them up. Otherwise, allow the FAC process to continue in peace. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are many points here that FAC is not the place to hammer these issues out. FAC is where one goes once most of those have been dealt with. The move here from the PR could be considered just as WP:POINTy, if not moreso, as the claims made about PR issues raised.陣内Jinnai 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I said before, FAC is a process. Take a look at some of the other current candidates. How many of them consist solely of "supports" with no suggestions at all for improvement? FAC is where an article undergoes the final touches to become an FA. More often than not, the article is almost, but not quite FA quality at the start of FAC but attains that by the end. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • FAC is not the place where you bring a medicore article to get help on various issues; only ones that are already quality articles. This article needs far more than just "final touches".陣内Jinnai 14:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The above is one editor's viewpoint and he/she is entitled to it. Requesting withdrawal is appropriate in cases where an article comes here in a clearly unprepared state. This article may or may not be close to meeting the FA criteria, but it has not come here unprepared; it received a pretty detailed peer review from Finetooth, who is one of our most experienced reviewers. I have no view yet about the article's merits, but I think this is a good faith nomination, and it should be allowed to ride a while. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review:

  • Refs 6, 47 and 48: Gamespot.com is the website name; publisher is CBS Interactive Inc
  • Refs 34, 36, 38 and 40: GameRanking is the website name; publisher is again CBS Interactive Inc
  • The same publisher is responsible for the Metacritic site, refs 35, 27, 39 and 41.
  • Publisher information should also be given for Gamespot.co, 1up.com and Gamestats.
  • Ref 60 appears to be in Japanese.
  • It is not clear what information is being cited to Tokyopop, nor why this is considered a reliable source. It appears to consist of a blog for registered users.

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • All fixed. The Tokyopop citation is for the "Synopsis" panel on the right hand side. It's a little hard to see, but that is the official page. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not much of a reviewer, so I'll just point out problems I see without supporting or opposing.

  • I already knew about the games, so I know what's up, but I don't think the first paragraph of the lead adequately explains that the game has a game inside it that the characters are playing.
  • You might want to mention in the lead that //sign was an anime series and the first element of the franchise, rather than rely soley on readers clicking the link
  • "the resulting area may have a varying level, element" - you haven't explained yet what level or element means in this context
  • Both development and reception need to be longer. I know Development is hard to do for Japanese games, but for an article on four games I would expect a much longer reception. Like, a short paragraph or half-paragraph on each one + one on the series as a whole.

--PresN 15:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for your comments. I made a few changes based on your first few points, but for your last point, I don't think those two sections can get any longer. I read a LOT of reviews for the games but they all seem to say approximately the same thing for each game. I've covered all the points that they make but to be honest, there isn't much else to say. As for development, I only found one article that even remotely resembled development info. I hope this doesn't become a sticking point, because especially for lesser known games like this, the development info simply doesn't exist or get published since it's not a big blockbuster release like Halo or Final Fantasy. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The inestimable Brianboulton asked me for my comments, so here I am.
    • I'm not sure about the use of "One" throughout, such as "One may..." Going from "The player" (a singled out subject) to "One" (a more general term) seems a tad incongruous. I think perhaps changing mentions to plural (players) will allow greater nonspecific subjects (their, et al) and less repetitious phrasing in areas.
      • Yeah, I was struggling to figure out how to do that. I removed all the "ones" now. Does it read better? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like in terms of comprehensiveness, there needs to be more information on development and reception. Can we get at least a paragraph for each game's reception, since I'm assuming there's no good sources summarizing how the series has been received overall.
      • Having combed through more reviews of these games that I'd like to admit, I don't think there's much else to say. I don't know how familiar you are with the games, but all four of them are literally identical so reviews of each game will mostly cover the same points. The few times that improvements were made between games has been noted in the reception section. Also, I'd like to expand the development section, but I don't think there are any more reliable sources out there. If you find any, please let me know. I'd really appreciate it. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's some choppy prose, but they're fairly minor spots... I'll see about dealing with them myself.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question/comment – Is there a reason why the first paragraph in the lead has an inline citation, since I see no quotations around? Perhaps I'm being a consistency nit, but if the other two paragraphs do not have inline citations (not counting quotations), then the first should not. The stuff in the first paragraph should be mentioned in the article body with the citation moved from the lead to the body.More comments on the rest of the article to come once I get a little time to comb over the article. –MuZemike 20:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's there because that's the only time Liminality is mentioned in the article so the citation can't go elsewhere. Do you have a better place for it? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that's the only place it's mentioned that seems to be evidence that it's either not important (because it's not in the body) or that it should be added. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/.hack_(video_game_series)/archive1&oldid=1044076107"