User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts/test-WikiProject Video games

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Article alerts


About this report

This is a report about articles related to this project in Wikipedia workflows. It contains all articles in workflows which are tagged with {{

User:B. Wolterding/Article alerts
for details.

The following workflows are covered in this report. (Not necessarily all of them have active items, though.)

  • Proposed deletion
  • Articles for deletion
  • Miscellany for deletion
  • Templates for deletion
  • Categories for deletion
  • Good article nominations
  • Good article reassessment
  • Good topic candidates
  • Featured article candidates
  • Featured article reviews
  • Featured list candidates
  • Featured list removal candidates
  • Featured topic candidates
  • Peer review
  • Requests for comments
  • Requested moves
  • Did you know

Alerts

Proposed deletion

Articles for deletion
7 Oct 2008 – Galaxy (video game) (talk) nominated for deletion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

m
18:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy (video game)

Galaxy (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has already been deleted once, no changes have been made to the article since being restored, notability is unclear. HollyHuntaway (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I'm working on it; the article was restored minutes ago. The nominee is a supposed newbie who placed prod or prod2 tags on a variety of articles in 24 hours in the past week. Bearian (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, because said user was involved in the article a while ago. However, it was deleted per
G4 doesn't apply. MuZemike
05:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 09:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
7 Oct 2008 – Empty Clip Studios (talk) nominated for deletion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Unanimous Keep.

Pounce!
11:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Empty Clip Studios

Empty Clip Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable games studio which has released one game which itself isn't particularly notable yet (and may never actually be notable) the studio fails

WP:RS. Speedy declined on the basis that someone has created an article for the game and apparently that counts as an assertion of importance/significance for the companyJasynnash2 (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Jasynnash2 (talk
) 15:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 06:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sourcing provided by MQS. Icewedge (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as it's been sourced. If no further verifiable information can be found, though, a merge might be suitable. Randomran (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sources found above.
    MuZemike (talk
    ) 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
6 Oct 2008 – WolfTeam (Video Game) (talk) nominated for deletion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WolfTeam (Video Game)

WolfTeam (Video Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable online game, created by a company whose Wikipedia page has been deleted on grounds of... notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also nominating

Good You went to the website. You get a cookie! If you can pull wikipedia rules out for your own selfish crap, I could easily say that the reason for deletion was pure bias, and that you are in violation of rules. And no, i'm not taking the time anymore to properly clean up my posts with fancy formatting. You can do it if you want uber censorship power, because that is what wikipedia is apparently about. If I was an admin, I could pull this crap on something you worked hard on. But, alas, I'm not an abusive admin. Stop YOUR bias, because if anybody contributes to the page, its because they want to, not because i told them. --Techdude300 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


Fine, delete the page, on one condition. YOU make an article, or find somebody who will, that fairly represents the game and uses your "quality" standards. Better get started, because I won't shut up about it until it's done. Good Luck! =)--Techdude300 (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't. That's the point of the notability standard. Nifboy (talk) 14:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I find some better sources and work really hard on this. Thanks for the input (sorry I can't log in and officialy sign this at school) -Techdude300 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.138.28 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
5 Oct 2008 – Vortex (iPod game) (talk) nominated for deletion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.

talk
) 08:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Vortex (iPod game)

Vortex (iPod game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing to show this is a notable software game. There's a link to the apple website, and a link to a cheatcode website, neither of which grant notability. seresin ( ¡? )  19:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
5 Oct 2008 – Sudden Attack (talk) nominated for deletion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 15:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sudden Attack

Sudden Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

talk
) 09:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This opinion seems very euro/American culture centric. This game is quite notable. I live in S. Korea, a country where computer games are played competitively on TV, in prime time, 7 days a week. This is the 2nd most popular game in the country behind Star Craft. It's unique free distribution system requiring government data is also a noteworthy contrast to standard games. The artical has major needs of revision and new sources, it's true, but it should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.72.229.46 (talk) 08:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
3 Oct 2008 – Node (computer gaming) (talk) nominated for deletion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. kurykh 01:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Node (computer gaming)

Node (computer gaming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment The mention of Myst might have been a mistake. But I know Beyond Zork did use the term "node" in this sense. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Interestingly, I vaguely remember a book about game design discussing this concept, but I don't remember much of it. I think someone familiar with the field should take a look at this. A quick Google Books search returns multiple reliable sources from books discussing game design that mention nodes, although the topic discussed is different from what is discussed in the article.
  • Delete — cannot find any sources establishing notability of what seems to be nothing more than a
    MuZemike (talk
    ) 18:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait a moment. A Google News search is unlikely to turn up concepts or techniques used in computer games. A textbook on game design would be more proper. Rilak (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • So why don't you a find a game book to use as a source in the remainder of this AFD? Schuym1 (talk) 04:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Because the AFD would be over by the time I got the book. There's no requirement to produce the source during the few days the AFD goes on for. Just to show that a source is likely to be found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Attempting to determine notability of a subject through an unrelated resource does not carry any weight. Its like searching for a paper about hamburgers in a library that contains papers on the subject of computers - pointless. Also, I was commenting, not recommending. Rilak (talk) 04:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Why should editors use a sources are out there keep? Schuym1 (talk) 05:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
          • If this AFD got closed per sources are out there, there is a possibility of the article sitting there forever without sources. Schuym1 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've found a few items in Google Books that look promising. While I can only get a few snippets of text, I don't think an interlibrary loan is going to get here before the AFD is over:
In The Inform Designer's Manual, by Graham Nelson and Gareth Rees, on p. 369, we have "Regions... or else are delineated by simple geography: cave games are especially prone to this, often having a node-like room with exits in eight cardinal directions. Thus "Zork II" has..."
In Hypertext: State of the Art by Ray McAleese and Catherine Green, on p. 138 we have "little passages of ADVENT and Zork and marketed by Infocom and other companies...where each scene is a node and your options are the allowable paths" and
In Atlas of Cyberspace by Martin Dodge, Rob Kitchin, on p. 181, we have "computer games "Zork" and "Adventure" of the mid-1970s ..... technique: link-node topological map, hand-drawn with pencil and paper."
So while these snippets I found over a couple minutes don't make an article, they do show it's more likely than not (the first book is a game designer's manual) that there really is a concept in game design called a node, and that it's associated with adventure games, it may have been more common in the 1980s, and may have its roots in text-based roleplaying games before computers. So we should give this article the benefit of the doubt and see which sources can be added. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Those sources don't show notability, and I don't think that any articles should have the benefit of the doubt. This article has had a long enough time to be improved because it has existed since 2006. Schuym1 (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
If they are books used to teach game design at a university or equivalent level, and they have a significant material on the subject, then I see little reason to see how they can not be used to prove notability. Also, judging a topic's notability on the quality on the article's content is irrelevant. I have seen basic fundamental topics in computer science lacking content and quality. Doesn't mean they are any less notable than a heavily edited Pokemon article. Rilak (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - It's clear that "node" here is the same data structure element as a node in a
    Adventure Game. --MASEM
    14:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
    • We could redirect to Level (video games) if there is no consensus to keep. It already has sections on maps and dungeons, and it wouldnt be too hard to condense the salvageable parts of the article plus the refs brought out in this AFD to create a paragraph discussing node-based gameplay. A redirect will keep the history of this article for people doing a merge. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Good article nominations

Good article reassessment

Good topic candidates
  • 10 Sep 2008 – Topic (unknown) with main article Half-Life 2 (talk) is nominated.

Featured article candidates
2 Oct 2008 – Crush (video game) (talk) is nominated.
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 User:SandyGeorgia 02:22, 13 October 2008 [15].

Crush (video game)

Nominator(s): MASEM


Bringing this video game article to FA. On the shorter side, but it is one of those games that got some but not a lot of attention despite the critical reception for it. I've double checked prose/references/images, and had a few others copyedit on the prose.

I will note (knowing their reliability will likely be questioned) on two of the references used: MoDojo is under

Federated Media Publishing (website), while blog-style posts, the article is an interview with the game's producer. SegaNerds is also a blog-style source under B5Media (website), but also, the article used here is a interview with the same person. --MASEM
22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Initial comments - David Fuchs
    • Image check: I'd like to see the fair use rationales beefed up, especially the 'purpose' section.
    • The lead doesn't mention much beyond the Escher bit about development.
    • Is there anything more to the plot? You can go to two paragraphs, you know :P

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've talked more about the purposes of the images in both FURs and captions (to id gameplay elements). I've added a note about the coincident element with SPM to the lead to expand it out. As to the story -- well, it's told over maybe about a half-dozen 1-minute cutscenes in the game; I'll go back and play through the cutscenes (there's no good story references out there beyond what I have, even at sites like Gamefaqs) to see if it can be fleshed out more (like, what exactly was troubling Danny to drive him to insomnia). --MASEM 23:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
This is what I'm talking about. Also, if the images are at the actual resolution, they aren't really low resolution; you can descrease the size slightly (say, to 350 or 400px without decreasing the visibility of items mentioned in the text significantly. Also, explain why no free replacement is available. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Rationales for game screenshots have been expanded, and images at 400x2xx something (same aspect ratio) have been uploaded over the old ones. --MASEM 06:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, image concerns met. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
The final line of reception should be merged in somewhere, not left by itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Merged at end of previous paragraph (there's not much where else it can go) --MASEM 04:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through and copyedited, clarified, and added inline comments when I was confused. Take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, I fixed the "primal" thing. --MASEM 16:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
The present "Story" section is a bit unclear on at least one point. It states that Danny's insomnia is caused in part by repressed memories, but then later states that (further?) repression of childhood memories offers a cure for that insomnia. Not quite sure what to make of this apparent contradiction. Perhaps there's some nuanced explanation that needs to be unpacked here? D. Brodale (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Corrected; Danny ends up facing those memories as the game progresses. --MASEM 06:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
There's still no expansion of the lead and any longer of a plot summary. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded these both from before as much as reasonably possible with the information provided. Again, the story in the game is all of about 6-10 minutes long told between levels, so the length of plot is appropriate for the game. The lead appropriately touches on the major points in the article and really cannot be made longer without starting to duplicate too much in there or unbalancing information in it. --MASEM 13:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Redundancies a problem. And 1a more generally.

  • My pet hate is "in order to", and there are two instances in the very opening para. Please remove the first two words in the second instance, and check through the rest of the article for this (usually) redundant little urchin.
  • Second para: "mechanic" is someone who fixes your car. I think it has to be plural here, or maybe just removed (what's wrong with the "gameplay" alone?). And here it is again, twice. Is it a mechanism? Process? Facility? Function?
  • "Game's"—redundant.

Is Deckiller around? He might know the right person to come afresh to this and massage the prose. Try reading

this and undertaking the associated exercises; I usually shy from promoting my own stuff, but here I think you'd benefit from developing a "radar". Tony (talk)
10:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • I note the sources noted above and those sorts of things should be decided by each reviewer.
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the story section needs a bit of expansion. At the moment it basically tells of the problem with Danny and how it's fixed, but doesn't touch on what the player actually does in game to achieve the end result ("during which he is able to organize his thoughts and face his childhood fears" is not enough). Giggy (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
  • "Some of Danny's thoughts, represented by glowing neon icons, are only activated when the world is crushed in a manner that properly completes them and remain in view" - might just be me but I had no idea what this was saying
    • The latter point, I've basically stated what the manual states (which is simpler than the above); thoughts activate when crushes, are no obscured, and are on-screen.
    • On the story, there's a very very loose connection between it and gameplay. I've expanded to point the weak connection of marbles (as in "losing ones marbles") and monsters so that they come up in gameplay. Also had to play the last, annoying level again to get the story ending (which is as vague as it seems) right. --MASEM 14:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Support. Giggy (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Support:

  • "The protagonist is Danny, a teenager suffering from insomnia, who uses an experimental device to explore his mind and return his life to normal". What is "back to normal"—life before insomnia or life before the device?
  • "This gameplay element was coincidentally similar to one in Super Paper Mario" It may be best to remain neutral and remove "coincidentally", as, unless a point is trying to be made, is pretty much redundant as both were made in 2007. Seems to be pre-emptively countering some assertion, if that makes sense.
  • Lead could be beefed up with a litle bit of development info; the Eshcer reference seems insufficient.
  • A minor query: is Danny's actual age revealed in the game? Where is his home set?
  • "he is able to regain control on his sanity by". Should it not be "of" as opposed to "on"?
  • "semi-intelligent female persona" This intermediate could mean anything to me, so I don't know what this device is actually like. Maybe you could elaborate or be more specific.
  • I'm uncomfortable with this trend for novel-length captions. It serves a purpose here, but you could cut it down if able.
  • "Crush spans forty levels spread across four worlds". "spans" and "spreads"? I don't know, maybe you could say that it contains four worlds, with ten levels in each.
  • "The goal of each level is to collect marbles" Remeber to specify this as the player's goal, and not just "the goal".
  • "Danny possesses limited jumping ability". I've yet to see a VG character that can jump infinite heights; I know it helps the phrasing to flow, but it doesn't mean anything in its present state.
  • "Scattered throughout the levels are spheres and cylinders, which the player can roll when crushed appropriately, and can be used as platforms or to depress switches." Just generally an awkward one. Could you reword please?
  • "Mottram noted that at the time during the development of Crush, the gameplay of Super Paper Mario had not yet been revealed, and thus were surprised to learn that the two games shared a similar feature" Not sure about this sentence. Seems to be missing a statement of who were surprised, although it is obvious.
  • "received,[4] however". Should there not be a semi-colon here?
  • ...There seems to be a growing consensus not to use review tables now; I must have missed that one. Could you explain the reasons for me, Masem?
  • I don't know why the main text of this section is sandwiched between two one-sentence paragraphs. They cover different subjects, but still.
  • "this was made up for by". Watch out for informal phrasing.
  • Again, I'm not sure, but I didn't think that external links are supposed to be in the main body of text. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  • I know it's an interview, but I'm not sure how reliable "Segar Nerds" is. An author is given for this; a surname is not stated, so I'm not sure if the name should be given.

Okay, generally a decent article. I'll give it another look once the amendments are made. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

All points (other than the following) have been corrected. On review score tables, it is not that the project is moving away from them, but they aren't always necessary: a more "complete" table can be found going to the linked aggregrate review sources (MetaCritic and GameRankings); this is also closer to how movies tend to organize their reception section. It is not that I couldn't add it here, but I feel it wouldn't really add much (thus, consider this more an experimental approach to see if the lack of a review table still gives a good read). On Sega Nerds, if it was anything but an interview, I would have replaced it, but it is an interview, they've seen to have done such in the past, and based on the Mottram interview, details are consistent with the few other details from other reliable sources (eg Gamasutra), so this is where I feel the source is reliable for the information it is providing: the developement section. --MASEM 11:15, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've decided to support. One things still bugging me: "Large spheres and cylinders are scattered throughout the levels which the player can roll when crushed appropriately, and can be used as platforms or to depress switches". How about: "Large spheres and cylinders are scattered throughout the levels which the player can roll when crushed appropriately. These can also be used as platforms or to depress switches, required to...". But if you're alright with it how it is, then just leave it. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I caught your edits and when through to verify the punctuation w.r.t. to the quoting, and also took some of the longer quotes to shorter snippets (such that all are partial sentences, thus putting the punctuation outside the quotes); the one ellipse was actually from the original quote but I nixed that. I also double checked the spelling again. --MASEM 04:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the ellipses; I think Tony says it's OK to change dashes and ellipses to our house style even when original source is different, but it's no big deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Like I said above, I don't really have the time to sit down and copy-edit an entire article; I might make a tweak here or there, but that's really all I have time to do. — Deckiller 03:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
30 Sep 2008 –
talk
) is nominated.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metroid (series)

Featured article reviews
18 Sep 2008 – Half-Life 2 (talk) is nominated.

Half-Life 2

previous FAR (11:06, 9 October 2008)

Featured list candidates
6 Oct 2008 – List of One Piece video games (talk) is nominated.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 20:53, 22 November 2008 [16].

List of One Piece video games

-- Goodraise (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


  • Support, per comments from last nomination. Why did it fail?Tintor2 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't know. I couldn't tell from the edit summaries. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the reason this FLC failed before was because of the concern based on the tables, as it was suggested that it be discussed at
X
02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - table issue is resolved from what I see below.--
    X
     01:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Support My issues were resolved from the previous FLC, and as long as the table issue is resolved, this list is ready for promotion. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Comments: The list looks like a good start and is close to FL status. Here are a few things that stood out to me.
    Lead
    • The first sentence seems a bit miss leading to me; mainly because I associated "One Piece" to a manga/anime series. I would tweak it to say "The One Piece video games series is published by..."
    • Another minor tweak. Feels redundant and just sounds weird to me: "The gGames of the One Piece series have been released..."
    List
    • I think I understand the comment about empty space now. However, I think this is a result of the content rather than the format. A sortable table won't use the space much better.
      • Are there any other interesting tidbits about the specific games? Did one introduce something new and different to the series? Does one have any interesting fact about its development?
        • I don't know. I didn't even play the games. Most of the games don't even have an article of their own. So there's no easy way of drawing information from. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Also, I think the publisher and developer comments can be combined into one statement. This will give the sentences more length and reduce some of the empty space to the right.
      • If need be you can remove the
        {{-}}
        template to cut down on empty space too. Some editors don't like them, but I don't think they're a problem.
    • Why is Battle Stadium not just a "Related game"? I remember it featuring characters and elements in a basic manner like the Jump Star games.
Hope these comments help. The list is looking good and I'll be happy to support once these issues are addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC))
I don't know what you mean by "basic manner", but the "O." in "Battle Stadium D.O.N" stands for "One Piece", the "D." for "Dragon Ball", and the "N" for "Naruto". The playable characters and stages, like the title, are close to equally shared among the franchises. While Jump Ultimate Stars and Jump Super Stars feature characters from a wide variety of sources, like Super Smash Bros., Battle Stadium only draws from these three, more like X-Men vs. Street Fighter. However, that's just my subjective way of sorting the games and I wouldn't mind changing it, if this explaination is not convincing. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice your question. I guess I've just always looked at the games (D.O.N. and Jump Stars) as the same type. Mainly because they are games focused on Shonen Jump characters with no real plot elements from any one series. The main difference I see is that DON focuses on just three series instead of 20+. I think a combining them into a single section titled "Other titles" would simplify things. I would also add details in the notes sections about what specifically relates them. Maybe number of characters, mention there are stages based on the anime, etc. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC))
  • Done. (Don't worry about replying late. I did not expect a reply until I was done with the other issues. At that point I would have left you a message. Unfortunately, my hands are a bit fuller right now, than they were during the first two FLCs. This list has been up here for so long now...) -- Goodraise (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Further comments:
    Citations
    • I noticed there are a good number of references for some non-controversial content. I'd say two refs are perfectly fine and that some of the first party sources don't add anything extra to the list.
      • With the exception of reference [2] I used references I already had for everything they covered. That was in the early stages of that article. At that point I did not care about the visual appeal. Since then, as removing them is a lot easier than putting them back in, I left them where they are. Do you think I should remove excessive references? -- Goodraise (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I tweaked the placement of citations to cut down on some of the excess, specifically the publisher/developer info. I did about half of the article as an example.
      • Done. (With 2 exceptions related to 2nd next issue.) -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I would argue that if a game was released on a single platform, then a citation isn't that necessary; the citation of the release date normally has that info anyway. But that's just me and it is not a deal breaker by any means.
      • Left it as is for the moment. As long as it's only one reviewer suggesting this, I'd rather not have to put it back later. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    Content
    • For
      Namco Bandai
      ) is because the game was released in North American after March 31, 2006 when Namco and Bandai merged. I think this should be clarified in the notes and the lead. Something like, "Most of the games were originally published by Bandai. Following the merger of Namco and Bandai in March 2006, the series has been published under the Namco Bandai name."
      • Now, this is a bit tricky. I've carefully (maybe too carefully) tried not to do original research. Most of the games were released by
        Namco Bandai Games, and even Banpresto fall into that category. I am not sure if the average reader of the list wants to be informed in such detail about the Namco Bandai Group's inner structure. But if it is desired, then I can elaborate, no problem. -- Goodraise (talk
        ) 23:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Other than these small issues, I'd say the list has shaped up nicely. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC))
I think the extra refs amount to overkill and can be distracting. One Piece: Grand Battle! 3 for example. My eyes are drawn to the refs instead of the content.
Now that you mention it, I think explaining the merger is unnecessary and may confuse more than it informs.
Other than the refs issue, the list looks good. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC))
Fixed. I removed 30 citations from only 3 title entries. I suppose it was a bit much. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Support: The list has definitely improved and my main concerns have been addressed. Though I think the article still has some minor room for improvement here and there. But I still believe it meets criteria in its current form. Good job. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC))

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

Featured topic candidates

Peer review
28 Sep 2008 – Peer review opened for Rock Band (talk).

Rock Band

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because this game revolutionized gaming as did Guitar Hero, but this time they added drums, vocals, rythym and bass. Also this game is becoming a world wide hit. Please look over my article about it and give me as much feedback as you can. I want this article to give the game the credit it deserves. Thanks,

GamerPro64 (talk
) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Ynhockey:

  • Before I start, let me say that I edit video game-related articles very rarely, and don't know the specific FA requirements that might be expected of such articles.
  • The main problem I have with this article currently is that it takes the notion that long prose is better than lists/short paragraphs too far. Prose is in fact better, but not in this kind of presentation. For starters, it needs better organization into paragraphs. Also currently it has too many unneeded punctuation marks (especially quotation marks, e.g. musical "notes" - why not simply notes?) and a severe lack of wikilinks. For example, I'd expect 'master recording' to be linked, a link far more useful than 'Rome', for example (not against that link by the way, just saying it's less important than some others).
  • Some sections lack sourcing. In addition, while this may be difficult because the game is recent, I think more varying sources should be found, especially those with a good reputation. For example, there are several well-known gaming magazines (e.g. PC Gamer), which aren't even cited once. Again, not sure about sourcing standards for gaming articles, but it's usually not great if most sources are from the same 2 websites (GameSpot and IGN).
  • Organization - the article is overall organized properly, but some choices are strange: for example, why are advertizing and pricing under 'development'?
  • Finally, let me commend all contributors to the article on the good work - overall the article is of high-quality, especially the lead section and smart use of tabular data.

Good luck!
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  • 3 Sep 2008 – Peer review requested for
    talk
    ).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:B._Wolterding/Article_alerts/test-WikiProject_Video_games&oldid=1159577260"