Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donkey Kong 64/archive1

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 promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2017 [1].

---

Donkey Kong 64

Nominator(s): czar 03:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This 1999 video game marked the decline of the adventure platform genre. "As ... Super Mario 64 breathed life into the 3D platforming genre", Electronic Gaming Monthly wrote, "Donkey Kong 64 sucked it all out". But you couldn't infer that from the lionizing 1999 press. Interesting enough, today's game journalists remember the game's 1999 reception as "mixed" even as Metacritic called it "universal acclaim". Reading the original reviews, almost all mentioned the nagging backtracking for collectibles, but only one reviewer (GameFan) went so far as to call it (as retrospective reviewers do) a deal breaker: "a big bloated project with not enough brilliant moments to justify the numbness ... [of] sitting through the whole thing". Indeed, as much as GameFan was an outlier among the 1999 hype men, it had its finger on the game's legacy. The game is not a "recommended" title in the overall Donkey Kong series, but as the console's top seller in the 1999 holiday season and with over two million copies shipped, the game is famous despite how it was sold.

This article is the most complete treatment of the topic on the Internet, and includes a wide range of online and offline sources worked into readable prose. I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria, and look forward to your feedback. czar 03:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FunkMonk

Resolved

I'll review this soon. Always disliked this game, because it had none of the atmosphere of the SNES games, so will be fun if this article can in some way change my opinion... FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Ha, well, I think it'll do more reinforcing than changing of opinion, unfortunately! czar 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Some words are not linked at first occurrence outside the intro, including the characters (that have articles), minigame, Rare, etc. I'm not sure whether the design of the console and its components are copyrighted, so I'll leave it and see if it is brought up during image review, but may be a problem. "and avoid consumer confusion,[25] However, according to Rare" Seems the first comma should be a full stop? "Nintendo said that it bundled the accessory with the game to simplify its installation and avoid consumer confusion", "Additionally, Nintendo said that the choice to bundle, rather than selling the accessory separately, would avoid consumer confusion." Seems like the same information repeated? "The game released in November 1999" Was released? "as Nintendo fought off the new Sega Dreamcast console." This seems a but hyperbolic, and I'm not sure what is meant (did Nintendo win?). "Competed with" might be more neutral? The setting is barren and nondescript at first, and only later introduces lighting effects and richer textures." I think this subjective statement needs clearer attribution. It's a statement of fact, not interpretation, and it's within the IGN citation segment. I can move a direct citation next to the sentence if necessary, but I didn't think it was needed The sourcing is fine, I'm just not sure who says this from reading the text, I think you could mention who made this opinion (IGN, it seems). FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Right, I meant that it isn't an opinion—I see that it's between two opinion statements from IGN but this one is evaluative (like the statements also sourced to the review and used in the Gameplay section). Reception sections can be monotonous "X said Y" affairs, so it's important to diversify the prose. I'm open to rephrase suggestions but I don't think that attributing the statement to the author ("IGN said") clarifies more than it congests in this case. czar 01:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Ok, I would have suggested semicolon, but then the combined sentence would be overly long. But if no one else latches onto this, should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC) It always baffled me that Dixie and Kiddy Kong were not in the game, though they seem to have been replaced by very similar characters for no apparent reason. Any discussion of this in the sources? As far as I can recall, not at all, or at least no one made a point of it. The closest is that Dixie and Kiddy are "lookalikes" of Tiny and Chunky.[2] (I'd consider this a minor point, in any event.) Heheh, at least now I know I wasn't the only one who thought this... FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC) "Donkey Kong 64's 3D platforming commonplace by the time of its release" Missing a "was"? Thanks, @FunkMonk. Addressed this first batch. czar 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - looks good to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - while I may be a bit biased seeing as I contributed a bit to the Development section, it cannot be denied you've done an outstanding job here, especially considering the scaricty of any substantial sources. So yeah, I pretty much agree with the intro claim about the article being the most comprehensive body of information about the subject. Another thing of note is that the prose seems to be concise, well-written and diverse all across the board. All in all, this is exemplary work. You've got my vote for this one. Electroguv (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Just one comment from Niwi3

Resolved comment from Niwi3

You've picked a poor gameplay screenshot. Try to illustrate a gameplay mechanic or show a good perspective with the player character in the center of the screen. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC) @Niwi3, do you have a suggested shot? It illustrates typical gameplay, shows some environmental distance, which few other shots have. I looked at alternatives, such as those printed in the original reviews, and would have used them if they were significantly more illustrative. I considered a shot with the special ability pad/swap barrel, but those concepts could be adequately explained in the text, so the image is for illustration of how the character plays in the environment. Also the player-character is rarely in the center of the screen when the character is in motion, so not sure that tip is instructive—it illustrates more that the character is frequently not in the center of the screen (which helps lead the camera to see what's ahead). czar 15:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC) @Czar: you can find many good screenshots here. This one, for example, is better to illustrate typical gameplay and environmental distance. You can also use this one to explain that players can climb up trees and swing from vine to vine. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC) I replaced the screenshot with the first one you recommended—it has a little extra draw distance of the original scene, but it also has the benefit of being an emulated rendering (and thus, sharper). czar 21:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:DonkeyKong64CoverArt.jpg: Non-free cover art, which seems like the appropriate license to me. Non-free use rationale appears to satisfy all requirements.
• File:Dk64 jungle.jpg: Non-free screenshot, which seems like the appropriate license to me. NFCC#8 rationale is a bit generic, may want to specify what it is used to illustrate.
• File:Nintendo-64-Memory-Expansion-Pak.jpg: Free image on Commons. Image topic is discussed in the adjacent section. Good EXIF, no indication of impropriety.
• File:Jungle green Nintendo 64 (10448842084).jpg: Free image on Commons. Image topic is discussed in the adjacent section. Image is from Flickr, no evidence of copying in GIS.
• File:Grant Kirkhope.png: Free image on Commons. Dependent on OTRS and hasn't been processed yet apparently. Image is of the composer and is discussed in the adjacent section.

All images appear to have good ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Dank

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Fn 7, 35 - These aren't really References, they are cited notes point to something else. You should make a separate Notes section for something like this.
• Fn 3, 10, etc. - Provide an ISSN for each magazine cited.
• Fn 49 - Incorrect citation: This is the June/July 2005 issue.

Otherwise, looks good. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, @Laser brain! Updated the heading and ISSNs. Ref 49 uses "June 2005" instead of "June/July 2005" because the citation template throws an error for dual dates. czar 20:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think we are close now, but given that Electroguv says that they contributed to this article, I'd feel a little happier to have a little more review before promoting this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Sarastro1, for what it's worth, that contribution was a sentence & source, which while appreciated, I wouldn't consider enough to make the editor affiliated. Either way, your call czar 00:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll give this a day or two more and see if anything pops up, but I won't hold it up if no-one else comes forward. One little thing in the meantime, there are a few places where the references aren't in numerical order. I think this probably needs fixing. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That's intentional (I usually order the refs by pertinence) czar 06:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.