Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver/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 promoted by Karanacs 14:55, 5 May 2009 [1].

Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver[edit]

Nominator(s): The Clawed One (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets all Featured Article criteria. It uses images to enhance the subject and uses non-free images sparingly, is written in a neutral and grammatically correct format, and is properly organized and sectioned. Notability has been established by numerous third-party sources, the plot sections are brief and written out-of-universe, and all information within the article is factual and verifiable. It has already been assessed as a Good Article, and with the improvements made since I believe it has met the criteria to be a Featured Article. The Clawed One (talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: While you do cite a good number of reviews, I would say that it needs more from magazines. As is often said on FACs for older games, sites that are considered reliable now might not have been when the game was released. It was a fairly major release, if I remember correctly, so finding a few magazine reviews shouldn't be difficult. Props on the newspaper sources, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: The two most prominent sites cited are GameSpot and IGN. IGN, as far as I can tell, existed before Soul Reaver was released, and I believe GameSpot as well though it was under a different domain name back then (videogames.com, I think it was). For magazine and newspaper sources, the papers came from another user and I've no idea how he got them. Alone, I didn't have much success finding printed material to source. The Clawed One (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, here's PC Zone's review of the PC version: [2]. That was a UK magazine review, now archived online. Judging by this, it was reviewed by OPM, EGM and Next Generation, as well. User:Mitaphane has all these issues according to this, this (October 1999 review) and this (June 25, 2003). Mitaphane can be contacted for scans and/or excerpts from each review on his talk page. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I'll talk to him, if he can provide magazine information I'll certainly incorporate what he has into the article if possible. The Clawed One (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In case you haven't, you might want to try Mitaphane's email. S/he hasn't edited since April 1. — TKD::{talk} 05:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I incorporated a bit from the PC Zone review in. One thing I remembered as well, I previously had cited an issue of Official Playstation Magazine for providing a demo disk for the game, but removed it because I couldn't find any appreciable information on the exact issue, just that the magazine came with a demo disk. >< The Clawed One (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm the one who found the off-line newspaper reviews (through InfoTrac). Unfortunately the subscription that I have access to seems to find more on Soul Reaver 2 than Soul Reaver, which doesn't help this article. — TKD::{talk} 21:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And... as soon as I wrote that, I found Computer Gaming World's write-up. I didn't catch it in my initially two times through the search results because they somewhat confusingly call the game Legacy of Kain 2: Soul Reaver, which I must have interpreted as Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 2. It's definitely talking about the first Soul Reaver because it's from January 2000. I'll incorporate it later tonight. — TKD::{talk} 21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I also found a blurb on BBI action figures for Raziel and Kain, which I added. — TKD::{talk} 22:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I have an old copy of Official UK Playstation Magazine (issue 42) sitting in front of me, which has a 4-page analysis on the game, including many allusions to the deleted stuff. Most of it is an interview with the producer, Rosaura Sandoval - the editors managed to misspell Raziel (Ralzeil) but it's valid nonetheless. I also have another issue with the official review, buried somewhere. If you want some citations from either/both, let me know. Monere (talk) 12:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be greatly appreciated. The Clawed One (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tech. Review
  • Comment. Just noticed this, but the lead doesn't mention anything from the Development section. It should, especially given that the legal issues and other delays caused material to be cut, which in turn influenced reviewers' reception of the story. — TKD::{talk} 22:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on images.
    • File:Legacy Of Kain- Sould Reaver Cover.jpg needs a full fair-use rationale.
    • I reduced the resolution on File:SoulReaverRealmComparison.JPG, since its primary purpose was to illustrate the general comparison of the two realms, so violating the general 0.1 megapixel guideline for that didn't seem to be too strong of a case for me.
    • File:SoulReaverEarlyConcept.JPG is sourced to thelostworlds.net, a fan site, but the copyright is actually held by Eidos, the game's publisher. Where did thelostworlds get the image? If it was from hacking the deleted material in the game, then we're basing the image on the reliability of the site (which is bad). If it's actually from a game magazine, we should get and cite it from the magazine directly instead.
  • — TKD::{talk} 05:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cover I didn't upload, not sure what to do about that. As for the Lost Worlds, I can't even find the original image on the site now. The Clawed One (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright, I found the image. It's listed with several other alternate or deleted weapons, but the page doesn't mention where or how the images were acquired. The Clawed One (talk) 06:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added the fair-use rationale for the cover image. As for the The Lost Worlds' image, if we can't verify its provenance (pending being able to find print sources), it should probably be removed. — TKD::{talk} 07:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can confirm that the image is from a prerelease magazine, not from hacking of any version of the finished game. However I have no memory of which specific magazine or issue. I'm pretty certain it's been discontinued. You could ask Ben Lincoln through email if worst comes to worst - I'm sure he'd have no trouble sourcing it. Monere (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I emailed him, he confirms that the image appeared in "2 or 3" game magazines, but can't recall which ones. The Clawed One (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's a pity. I'll go looking for my other magazine with the review, which had alternative shots you could use and source. Pretty sure a few of them are on The Lost Worlds. Monere (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ←Yeah; a similar development screenshot from a reliable source would serve the purpose. If we can get one and incorporate the other print magazines mentioned, I would support this article for FA. — TKD::{talk} 10:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To identify and illustrate the game or program in its own article or a closely related article" is not an acceptable non-free content rationale. Rationales must be catered to the exact situation; the specific image and article. When writing the rationale you should know whether it's a game and in which article it appears. Jay32183 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK; I've revised and expanded on the rationale. — TKD::{talk} 04:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Was the game released anywhere besides NA? GameFAQs says the game was released in Europe, and a Japanese version was cancelled.
  • Gameplay needs just a little more, I think, to be accessible to a non-gamer. There's no mention of the perspective that the camera uses, for instance, or the genre. Wikilinks to both of those may help a non-gamer better understand the game.
  • The series in the infobox should probably be italicized.
  • Is the MobyGames external link necessary?
  • Can the publishers in the reviews infobox be arranged alphabetically?
  • The article's flow is great until that list of voice actors. Can it be rearranged somehow?

Support. I'm satisfied with the research and use of sources. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the voice actors, I was the one who suggested that it be presented as a list, simply because the prose version was essentially: "Y and Z were voiced by X. X2 voiced Y2." I'm not a big fan of lists, but I felt that, in this scenario, it was the better way to present the information (while copyediting I struggled with a way to present that information less blandly). The Clawed One (talk · contribs) said that he had a better prose version, though, so I'd be curious to see whether he's been able to invigorate that section. — TKD::{talk} 12:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the MobyGames link. It doesn't really add anything. — TKD::{talk} 09:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally dug up OPM UK's official review of the game, with pre-release screenshots. Both of these images at The Lost Worlds appear in this review:

[3] [4]

You could use them as replacements for the Human Citadel image which unfortunately, like Ben, I've been unable to source. As for the review, if you'd like to include it in Reception, OPM gave Soul Reaver a rating of 9/10 and their StarPlayer award ("Special games which deserve to go on your must buy list"). There were a multitude of comparisons made to Tomb Raider 3 (OPM felt Tomb Raider was narrowly superior). A promo screenshot of Raziel was also used as the cover image, if that's of any use.

Details: Reviewer - Daniel Griffiths, Issue - 43, Date - March 1999. Hope this is of some help, if you need any further specifics I'm happy to oblige. Monere (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a new image, don't know what to do about the rationale now though. To answer the above questions, it seems the rating box can't be arranged alphabetically, must be how the template is set-up. I added a tiny bit more to gameplay, removed the external link to MG, and restructured the VA section. I looked but couldn't find anything so far about a European release, but I'll keep searching. The Clawed One (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, GameSpot confirms that it was released in Europe. It also says it was re-released as part of the "Ricochet" collection, and a Platinum edition. Does anyone know what those terms mean? I'd note them in the article if I could explain it. The Clawed One (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I live in Europe and bought it here, plus several UK magazines reviewed it, so it's reasonable to conclude that the game was released outside of NA. LoK is very popular in Brazil, too, so it's likely there was also a SA release. Matter of fact, mine is the "Ricochet" version (the exact same game, just an Eidos re-release with a different case after the initial shipping due to overwhelming popularity and sales, similar to Sold Out Software). The Platinum range is similar except handled by Sony. Monere (talk) 19:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. So Platinum Range in Europe is basically the same as Greatest Hits in NA then? The Clawed One (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone slapped a template on the article for too many copyrighted images. Anyone else have a problem with this, because no one has said anything about too many images until now. The Clawed One (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that all three images would be justifiable. However, to be compliant, the development image should be tied into the prose a little better; the superseded glyph menu that the caption highlights isn't mentioned in the running prose, so it's a bit confusing to the reader. Also, the Official UK PlayStation Magazine review needs page numbers, as does the updated development image. — TKD::{talk} 00:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd certainly add page numbers, if Monere can provide them. The Clawed One (talk) 16:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Monere left them on my talk page. I see that you added them to the article; I added the page number to the image description page. — TKD::{talk} 01:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, for what it's worth. Note that, if it wasn't obvious, I've been significantly involved in copyediting, finding and adding a few sources here and there, and addressing miscellaneous concerns. I've read the article over several times before and during FAC, and I now think that the above concerns are addressed satisfactorily. I'd personally feel more comfortable if the Next Generation and EGM sources could be consulted. However, given that their scores, according to GameRankings, are fairly in line with those of other reviews, and given that major sources—electronic and print, American and UK—are cited already, covering all three versions of the game, I feel that coverage is sufficient to be "thorough and representative" as required by criterion 1c. — TKD::{talk} 07:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry, TKD; I hadn't thought to check my talk page the last few days, so I only just got your message. Honestly, I still think it needs the Next Gen and EGM sources, due to the sheer number of times the GameSpot and IGN reviews are cited. Even if the general critical opinion is behind what they're saying, it would be best to show that by replacing a few mentionings of the GS and IGN reviews with other sources that say the same things. It also wouldn't hurt to expand the range of sources covering the console versions, preferably with the EGM and Next Gen reviews. I'll add my support if these issues are taken care of. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't work with what I don't have. I don't have Next Gen or EGM, and no one has volunteered the information on them. The Clawed One (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, much of what the Gamespot and IGN reviews is just from the Gameplay section describing the gameplay. I don't see how that's a problem since no matter which magazine or website reviews it, it's the same gameplay and the same game. The Clawed One (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was referring to the number of times the article mentions IGN and GS in the reception section. I hadn't even looked at their overall usage. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll inquire at WT:VG to see whether anyone else can help. One thing that may make tracking down the EGM review more difficult is that I somehow doubt that it's actually originally from 2003, four years after the game's release, as GameRankings claims. — TKD::{talk} 02:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has Mitaphane been emailed regarding these reviews? I've never known him to ignore requests; he might just not have noticed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I asked The Clawed One (talk · contribs) that a couple days ago, and apparently there has been no reply yet. It's possible that Mitaphane is busy in real life; I certainly know the feeling. — TKD::{talk} 03:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just came back to check out how the article looks with the GI review. I'm sorry if it sounds like I have a bone to pick, but even though the GI stuff is welcome, the IGN and GS reviews are still mentioned either in name or through a citation something like 7 times in the first paragraph of reception alone. Surely other reviews exist that could replace at least a few of those. Even just removing a few of them entirely would help; the whole section just seems incredibly biased because of the constant barrage of the same 2-3 reviews. If it isn't a bother, I could just shut up and replace/trim them myself, to keep my obnoxious comments at a minimum. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries mate, a little sentence rearranging, and the two are mentioned once in each paragraph. The Clawed One (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey, that's a pretty big improvement. The only thing I think now is that it could use one more print source; it has a pretty good assortment of reviews, but one more print review of the PSX version or Dreamcast version would cause me to support. I'll trawl the Internet and see if I can find anything. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there's Mitaphane with the DC and PSX Next Gen reviews. The EGM review would be nice, as it's the most famous and important console magazine, more or less. But the addition of Next Gen is enough for me. No reason to wait until you include them; I'll support now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So......what happens now? The Clawed One (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • You wait for either: A) The nomination to close; or B) Someone else to show up and oppose. In the mean time, mind incorporating those Next Gen scans Mitaphane gave you on his talk page? My support was on the condition that you put the Next Gen reviews in there. It shouldn't take long. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Ah, didn't notice those. Certainly, I'll look at them and work them in shortly. The Clawed One (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Unfortunately I don't have enough for citation yet, I need to find out the issue info and such. The Clawed One (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Done, all three issue scans have been added. I believe, if it were needed, that the scans could also be used to cite parts of the Gameplay section and lighten the load on the IGN/GameSpot/RPGamer refs being used there currently. The Clawed One (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2009 (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/Legacy_of_Kain:_Soul_Reaver/archive1&oldid=1148684978"