Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metroid (series)/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 not promoted 20:27, 31 March 2008.

---

Metroid (series)

Check external links

This article should be featured, it is comprehensive, has good images, lots of out-of-universe content, and just needs a brass star :) Please comment! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In Ealdgyth's absence, I see at least one blog and at least one missing publisher; pls check sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I wikilinked a bunch of publishers, I didn't find the blog, which one was it? Also, which publishers are needed? They look like they are all there. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

ah, ha could be in the formatting (publisher not listed after title, and for some reason, EGM italicized and listed before)??

• EGM staff (2001). Electronic Gaming Monthly's 100 Best Games of All Time. Retrieved on November 17, 2006.

And, http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2007/09/26/retro-studios-answers-the-dreaded-metroid-dread-question-and-other-prime-exclusives/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I formatted the one reference. Do you think that MTV isn't a reliable source? It looks like a legitimate interview, and they are a big American television network. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • I feel History should really have a sentence or two on the development of each game in the series.
  • Any other notable figure work on the subsequent games aside from Yokoi? If yes can Creation and design be expanded in that regard?
  • Audio section lacks any information about most of the games in the series.
  • Second paragraph of reception is lacking. I was hoping to a briefing on the reviewer and financial (sales) reactions to each game in the series.

All for now, thanks. 76.10.141.186 (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment! Here are some responses;
  • The history section is about the development of the whole series, and the section on the games covers individual games.
  • Yokoi is far and away the most importance originator of Metroid, but many others helped out and they are mentioned.
  • I'm not sure that there is such information for every one of them, or that that is needed, but I will beef it up.
  • Again, this is a series article, so reviews and sales data for every game is not necessary, but I will try to add some more. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added two sentences to the audio section, one to the Development section, a sentence to the music reception section, and sales figures on 4 of the 10 games with 4 references. So, added 8 more references. Let me know if you have any other concerns, or responses to my comments! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Further comments:

• In the Aggregate review scores table how come the original metroid row mentions a "gba remake" (in brackets) which oddly isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article, even the games section.
• The history section of development in my mind should give a mention to all/most games in the series. After all it's the history of the series. As of now it only loosely mentions Metroid, Super Metroid, Prime and Corruption. The second problem is the section is suffering from flow and comprehensive issues. By flow I mean that the transition from game to game/point to point is very awkward (prose wise) and in places very sudden. The comprehensive issues is that the section doesn't really answer 2 concrete question I wanted answered about each game: Why was it developed? What changes were made gameplay/graphic wise or basically which overall direction the developers went?
• Continuing from the above point Creation and design should probably be merged with History. I don't see how the two areas have any fundamental difference.
• The problem with the audio section is the same I had before, Tanaka is the only composer mentioned and he only worked on the original game. Most games aren't mentioned while the Metroid Prime series sentences don't really talk about the music/sound effects themselves but rather the technical aspect. As of now I don't really see anything to back up the first sentence "The Metroid series has been especially noted for its music" just from this section alone.
• For some reason the Reception section has a lot more information on the audio than the audio section. I propose all that information be transfered to the audio section. When it comes to the reception section I would think that reviewers and people reading reviews would be more concerned with the gameplay/story rather than audio (although not to say it's not important). I'm not sure why the reception section doesn't reflect this assumption and concentrates on the audio aspect (unless I'm wrong of course). :)
• In regards to your point about summary form and not mentioning every game in the series I don't want a paragraph on each but rather if the game was mediocre and received average reviews then that's enough to mention, no need to go into he said/she said (critics) this and that. I think going on that principal everything would work fine.

Thanks, 76.10.165.152 (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Here we go!
  • I added a reference to the Game Boy Advance release of the game.
  • I've worked on the prose and added a few sentences, but as I said before, the history section is about the games generally and most of the specifics on the games is in the games section. The creators section is about who made the games, and would probably not fit well into the history section if we have to keep repeating who made each game and so on. It flows better after the copyedit.
  • Also, the reason the reception section has more audio is because that is all reaction to the audio and music, and the Audio Section is about how they made Metroid music and why. I changed the opening statement of that section. I did add the composer of the Prime trilogy and Super Metroid, and another sentence or two.
  • Not every game needs to be mentioned for exactly the reason you say, non of them have ever gotten mediocre reviews overall, they have all been highly praised.

) Thanks! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Why is it that there's an image of Ridley, and not of central character Samus Aran? What's the rationale behind that? - hahnchen 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you think it should be Samus instead? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

If you need a character picture at all, it should be Samus or the eponymous Metroid. - hahnchen 03:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I replace Ridley with Samus :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support Looks like a good amount of effort has been put into improving this article, and I can suggest nothing more to do to it myself. Therefore, I give the nomination my full support. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support Good effort! Looks like a lot of work was put into this article. Gary King (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, due to grammar concerns. I'll post them as I find them. Examples:
  • "From Mario, the game had extensive areas of platform jumping, and from Zelda, non-linear exploration, but Metroid decidedly differs from those games in its atmosphere of solitude and foreboding." Doesn't flow correctly, should clarify "the game".
  • The lead doesn't really summarize the entire article, and is rather short. What about the adaptations? And is there anything on the cultural impact of the series?
  • In terms of sources about the games, the Metroid retrospective could provide some more info.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you are a featured article creator extrordinare these days, but are you sure Gametrailers is a reliable source? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is when I say it is! :P No, if it's the work of GT staff it is, I believe (like the Metroid, LoZ, Final Fantasy retrospectives, et al)- but user videos are definitely not included. Still, a fair question; perhaps we should ask at VT:VG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• • "The Metroid series currently consists of ten games across different video game platforms" - why not mention them, i.e. "The Metroid series consists of ten games spanning Nintendo platforms from the [etc]"
  • "...that had no distinction between music and sound effects" - this last clause is tacked on, rephrase so it's clear that "score" is the subject/noun in question.
  • "The Metroid series has been noted and praised for its unique style of video game music." this should have multiple citations to back it up.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. The article is thorough, but lacks fit and finish and a professional standard of prose. I note that you have not gotten a peer review, which should have been done before coming here. The article needs a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor. Some examples follow:
  • The hatnote/disambig link and all the SR stuff needs addressing. I'm guessing the actual name of the planet is "SR338" (although you write it different ways within the article) but "SR338" redirects to List of highways numbered 338. So you took the leftovers and redirected them here? The better solution would be to have all variants redirect to a disambiguation page that points them to the highway article or here. You can't guess if someone typing those in would be looking for a Metroid article or a highway article.
  • In the lead you are mixing verb tenses: "Metroid combined..." and "The series features..." They should probably all be present tense.
  • "The Metroid series consists of ten games spanning Nintendo platforms from the [etc]" Looks like a remnant of the first sentence in the next paragraph.
  • "The Metroid series currently consists of ten games spanning Nintendo Platforms from the Nintendo Entertainment System, Super Nintendo, Game Boy, Game Boy Advance, GameCube, and Wii." Grammar.. a "from" without a "to".
  • "Samus Aran has also been featured in many other Nintendo produced games..." Second "also" in a row. "Nintendo-produced" should be hyphenated.
  • "Metroid has had several games adapted into manga comics and a live-action movie was at one point in development." Metroid had the games adapted, or Nintendo did? The live-action clause needs a rewrite.

This is just the lead, but is indicative of problems throughout. --Laser brain (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Lately, peer reviews are an exercise in futility, and I wont be blamed for not utilizing them until they start being useful. As for the rest copyediting, I will get on it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a new list of PR volunteers that you can tap once listed at PR: also see WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008 for helpful tips on how to get PR to work more effectively (you've got to recruit :-). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant to mention that. Since putting my name on the list a couple weeks ago I've already been tapped for 3-4 peer reviews that I would not have sought on my own. I got a peer review on one of my own articles by asking at a WikiProject and offering help in return. The benefit of a peer review is that you get your own tired eyes off the article and some fresh ones on, which this article needs. --Laser brain (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

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