Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1080° Snowboarding/archive2
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 00:38, 1 December 2007.
1080° Snowboarding[edit]
This article failed a while back, and I did some follow-up work with copyediting and organizing to spiff it up. I then took a break, came back, and stuck it on the VGPR which has received no feedback. It's slightly short (no story section in a sports game), but I think its thorough, and meets the criteria. My only regret is my inability to locate its manual. I've come to finish the work I started; any comments are appreciated. Thanks, CM (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support the article is extensively referenced and well written; however, I do think the character section needs development, although I appreciate that material on that aspect of the game may be difficult to find --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The lead does not summarize the article. The prose needs to be checked for redundancy. "There are a total of seven modes in 1080° including training and options." "a total of" is unnecessary. Jay32183 20:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some super anon has done some serious copyediting work to the prose, and I think it has been greatly improved (you should really take a look). I also added a piece about the development to the lead, but I don't want to stretch the lead too much longer. More problems or ideas?--CM (talk) 23:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase "a total of" still appears in the text. You're going to want to check formatting against WP:MOS. For instance, full dates should be linked. The year of a full date should be linked to the year itself, not the year in video games. Jay32183 20:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the date and total of thing, but a friend used the automatic PR and said "Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article." I did your way, but don't entirely get it. The anon has been doing more copyediting, but I still have one problem. I have been looking for a good place to find the total sales of the game. I found three: one on magic box (middle of the page), one on Swivel and one on VG charts. Which one do I use? Average? Compromise? None of them?--CM (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That line is being generated in the peer review script because of the stand alone years in some of the references. Those don't need to be linked and can be considered over-linking. Until you made the change another line was being generated in the script about linking complete dates, which has now disappeared. Definitely don't average those sales, it would constitute original research and wouldn't produce a meaningful number anyway. If the source isn't reliable don't use it. I didn't see a publication date on any of those three, so they may not be fully reliable. Even if the publisher is reliable, the information could be outdated. When it comes to finding sources, don't settle for what's easy to find if you can't trust the quality. Jay32183 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen those websites used in other VG FAs, but I don't know how reliable they are. Do we leave the reader wondering if this game sold ten or ten million units, or can I say something like "1080 sold over a million units" and cite all three? It's not really OR, but gives the reader some sense of what's going on. The other way is to remove the units sold all together, since I don't think there are any other references I will be able to obtain regarding units sold.--CM (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not forgotten my promise, but I'm busy with a sick little one right now, so my edits will be short
- If the sources are reliable, then go with the largest figure, IMHO (the others likely don't take into account foreign sales or are outdated). An alternative is to say something like "Sale figures for the game vary from 1.23 million to 2 million, depending on the method of calculating sales." — BQZip01 — talk 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen those websites used in other VG FAs, but I don't know how reliable they are. Do we leave the reader wondering if this game sold ten or ten million units, or can I say something like "1080 sold over a million units" and cite all three? It's not really OR, but gives the reader some sense of what's going on. The other way is to remove the units sold all together, since I don't think there are any other references I will be able to obtain regarding units sold.--CM (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That line is being generated in the peer review script because of the stand alone years in some of the references. Those don't need to be linked and can be considered over-linking. Until you made the change another line was being generated in the script about linking complete dates, which has now disappeared. Definitely don't average those sales, it would constitute original research and wouldn't produce a meaningful number anyway. If the source isn't reliable don't use it. I didn't see a publication date on any of those three, so they may not be fully reliable. Even if the publisher is reliable, the information could be outdated. When it comes to finding sources, don't settle for what's easy to find if you can't trust the quality. Jay32183 20:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the date and total of thing, but a friend used the automatic PR and said "Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article." I did your way, but don't entirely get it. The anon has been doing more copyediting, but I still have one problem. I have been looking for a good place to find the total sales of the game. I found three: one on magic box (middle of the page), one on Swivel and one on VG charts. Which one do I use? Average? Compromise? None of them?--CM (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The phrase "a total of" still appears in the text. You're going to want to check formatting against WP:MOS. For instance, full dates should be linked. The year of a full date should be linked to the year itself, not the year in video games. Jay32183 20:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have provided feedback for the previous FAC and this article has gone under a significant upgrade since last time (EVERY technical detail seems to be up to snuff. BRAVO!!!), but I am not sure it should be an FA. I am concerned at the extreme brevity of this article (13 paragraphs of which all but a few are 3 sentences or less). Others:
- Parenthesis not used properly
- Any examples?
- (Its sequel, Wave Race: Blue Storm, would feature characters from 1080°.[16]) This doesn't need parenthesis and needs to be past tense.
- Fixed
- (Its sequel, Wave Race: Blue Storm, would feature characters from 1080°.[16]) This doesn't need parenthesis and needs to be past tense.
- Any examples?
- overlinked terms (i.e. "extreme sports snowboarding video game")...isn't that redundant anyway?
- Reworked that sentence.
- A unreliable source tag within the article
- That's the sales units. Still under construction.
- That's kinda the point. It is still under construction and not as complete as it should be. — BQZip01 — talk 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That was an out of date post anyway. It has since been fixed.
- That's kinda the point. It is still under construction and not as complete as it should be. — BQZip01 — talk 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the sales units. Still under construction.
- A lack of pictures (cover, screen shot...that's it?)
- There is no need to have more nonfree pictures in this article just for the sake of having more pictures--these adequately show what the game is like... What more would others show? Mangostar 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the "crouch move" that was so good? or a different scene?
- Did you want something like the characters? I was trying to think beyond another in-game screenshot.
- How about the "crouch move" that was so good? or a different scene?
- There is no need to have more nonfree pictures in this article just for the sake of having more pictures--these adequately show what the game is like... What more would others show? Mangostar 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Awkward shifts in verb tense: "which has an average score" followed by "It won the..."
- This is correct because metacritic aggregates reviews after-the-fact and didn't even exist when this game came out, but the award was won in the past. Mangostar 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But if it isn't current, it should be in the past (even if it was more recent).
- I think I fixed what you wanted.
- But if it isn't current, it should be in the past (even if it was more recent).
- This is correct because metacritic aggregates reviews after-the-fact and didn't even exist when this game came out, but the award was won in the past. Mangostar 22:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overreferencing: Ex: "Graphical faults identified by critics included occasional pop-up,[8] misplaced shadows,[8] and lag when racers passed through on-track trees;[25] these problems were generally identified as minor.[8][25]" [8][25] could just be at the end of the sentence.
- Better now?
- yes. — BQZip01 — talk 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Better now?
- References out of order. This is more of a polishing thing, but it looks awkward to have references out of order (i.e. [12][10][8]). Reorder these for a polished look to the article.
- Um.....ok.
Given the clear amount of effort that has been done to improve the article, I hate to shoot you down, but this may be one of those articles that can't get an FA because of a lack of materials available. If this doesn't get FA, I HIGHLY suggest going to Good Article and nominate it there...I think it would be a shoe-in. Good luck. — BQZip01 — talk 21:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it already is GA. Pagrashtak 22:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't realize it already was a GA. My bad.
- I guess we disagree on length requirements, but if it's comprehensive, length shouldn't be a problem. After all, 3/3 and 8/8 are both still 100%. Also see Iridion 3D.--CM (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor Support as the article is comprehensible enough. igordebraga ≠ 22:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find comprehensibility to be one of only a few dozen reasons to support an article. Is there anything else you find supportable about it? — BQZip01 — talk 01:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is illustrated, well-referenced (although the last ref is currently broken) and covers every aspect of the subject. Seems enough. igordebraga ≠ 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's not even comprehensive—there's no mention of the music used. Ashnard Talk Contribs 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I looked into music, there were no lists of music used, artists and the like. It's a nine year old racing game, and the most I could find for such a thing was the reception of music and the composer. There was more, but it was edited down to one paragraph. I'm not lucky enough to have the plethora of resources that seem to exist for FF games, but trust me I've looked. That not saying I could have made a mistake, and I'd love to be wrong, but sometimes the fact just doesn't exist.--CM (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mention the music in the third paragraph of Reception - maybe moving the part about the composing to Development (leaving only critics' opinion on the score in that section) would help. igordebraga ≠ 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I sympathise, I really do Clyde. I can't take any of the Fire Emblem articles to FA because I can't find any development info, and have had the same problem with Marth (Fire Emblem) for GA. It's just a real pain that this stuff has to be included. As for "Music", I think you could probably get away with it; it's preferred, but I think people acknowledge that it's hard to come by for games that don't publicise that information. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Request nomination be withdrawn Lack of paper resources and recent events of online resources have convinced me to withdraw this nomination.--CM (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.