Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shadow the Hedgehog (video game)/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 16:28, 11 April 2009 [1].

Shadow the Hedgehog (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezkag72 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. I began working on this article at the end of December 2008 and after three months of work, I think it is at the level of other video game FAs. Tezkag72 (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you were using the review site just for the review, it wouldn't be an issue. You're using it for gameplay though, so it needs to satisfy WP:RS. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I could find was a list of their staff writers. And it isn't in gameplay; only in "censorship". Tezkag72 (talk) 16:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still applies, if they are being used for anything other than an attributed review, they need to satisfy WP:RS and WP:V. To determine the reliability of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliability that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Layout/Prose/Style

  • Inline citations are generally not required in the lead.
  • The infobox lists the game's genre(s) as action-adventure, platform, and third-person shooter, but the rest of the article generally refers to it solely as a platformer. Maybe the first sentence in Gameplay could be changed to read "Shadow the Hedgehog is a platform game with elements of action-adventure and third-person shooter gameplay. Its basic gameplay is similar to previous 3D Sonic games."
  • In the Reception section, there are two single-sentence paragraphs. It's not unheard of in video game articles for sales info to be included in the first paragraph of Section, so I suggest the second single-sentence paragraph be merged with the first.
  • The second picture is cutting a bit into the Development section. Could it be moved alongside the first paragraph in Plot?

Sources

  • That first sentence in Reception should have inlines, for Metacritic and GameRankings, for instance.
  • Per WP:VG/RS, MobyGames should only be used for credit information (and even then I'd recommend Allgame); its review information is unreliable. Considering there are already scores from Metacritic and GameRankings, it seems excessive anyways.
Good, but is aggregate info from three separate sources necessary? It just seems like the reviews infobox is kind of huge as it is. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Instead, A2 recorded the song "Chosen One" in its place." - This sentence should have an inline citation.
    • Moved reference because it covers both that statement and the one it was previously after. Tezkag72 (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Support. I don't have any problems with the Gaming Age and Sonic Planet sources. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 05:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: 1b, 3.

  • Images
  • Sources
    • Is that all there is for sources? I found [2][3], for example, and plenty of possible print sources via LexisNexis. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't own or have access to any print sources regarding the game. Why? What needs sourcing? Tezkag72 (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not what's in the article that needs sources, it's the demand that the article be comprehensive—that a good sampling of all possible content out there is in this article. Send me an email and I'll reply with the print sources I find. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is this something that makes the article un-worthy? Tezkag72 (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of the editors in the VG space, I probably bitch about sourcing the most, as can be seen from my string of FAC opposes whenever I actually review a candidate. But online sourcing is not an issue here, this is a mass market PS2 era game, pretty much all the relevant coverage can be found online. (My general rule is pre-2001 = needs print) - hahnchen 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's nothing that makes the article "unworthy", I'm not trying to knock what you've done, but per comprehensive and well-researched criteria, what you can slap together from online searches isn't always enough. There's plenty of newspaper briefs I can send you which I feel would bolster the reception section, which focuses entirely on the gaming press' views; without information from mainstream newspapers, how are we to know if their opinions differed? There's plenty of previews out there online that could be used to bolster the development section by a paragraph or so, as well. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The Nintendo Power review is in the August 2005 issue, which I unfortunately do not have access to. GamerPro64 might, though. Tezkag72 (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Famitsu is not just a score index. You should cite the actual review and magazine. - hahnchen 23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't own the magazine. I removed the Famitsu stuff. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose—1a. Prose is not up to snuff yet, see if you can recruit User:Deckiller or User:Masem to sift through the text.

  • "what levels are played, and ultimately, which of the ten possible endings will be reached" Endings are ultimate"
  • "A number of new gameplay features separate Shadow the Hedgehog from the previous entries in the Sonic the Hedgehog series which feature Sonic as the main playable character. A difference between Shadow the Hedgehog and previous games in the series are the weapons sported by the character, which he can use to combat enemies found in each level." Several things wrong here, but this two-sentence chunk is generally wordy and repetitive. "which he can use to combat enemies" are you referring to the characters or the weapons?
  • "There is a multiplayer mode for two players, in which they can play as Shadow, two Metal Shadows, and a palette swap of each." More wordiness, "In the multiplayer mode two players can play as Shadow, two Metal Shadows, and a palette swap of each." Also, there is no mention of what a "Metal Shadow" is.
    • I de-capitalized "metal", but I think the wording you suggested just makes it confusing, talking about the multiplayer mode without introducing it with a "There is"-type thing. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, my suggestions aren't always the best. The point is though, the original sentence was unclear also. I think what is needed is someone who understands the game and terminology but is uninvolved with the article to check for comprehension. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specially-designed" MOS breach, -ly adverbs should not have hyphens.
  • "and can attack each other, steal each other's rings, and use weapons against each other until one is eliminated." Redundant, using weapons against each other is an attack. Ambiguity, who eliminates whom? How about "and use weapons against each other until one eliminates another."
  • "co-op is possible by a second player connecting " Use of "co-op" like this will lose many readers who are unfamiliar with video game terminology.
  • "50 years before " Another MOS breach, don't start sentences with numerals.
    • Reworded to "Fifty". Is this right, or am I missing the point?
  • "who had the ability to harness the mysterious power of the Chaos Emeralds in new ways."-->who could harness the mysterious power of the Chaos Emeralds in new ways.
  • "its leader, Black Doom"-->their leader, Black Doom simple subject pronoun error, the "Black Arms" are plural, yes?
    • I'm not sure. I wrote it how it is because the Black Arms is the organization.
  • Walk of Game. Link?

Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So, am I done or not? Tezkag72 (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those were just examples of why you need to find someone uninvolved, maybe an experienced video game editor, to copy-edit the whole text. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:19, 9 April 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/Shadow_the_Hedgehog_(video_game)/archive1&oldid=1148685091"