Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man/archive1

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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man

List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man/archive1

Nominator(s):  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel's Spider-Man is a 2018 action-adventure game for the PlayStation 4. I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all parts of the FL criteria, covering the plethora of awards and nominations received by Marvel's Spider-Man whilst also following accessibility guidelines. I would appreciate your feedback on the List. Kind Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from zmbro

• Table has scope cols but still needs scope rows per
  MOS:ACCESS
• Make sure all refs are archived (I can pinpoint a couple that aren't)
• I believe "Delahunty-Light, Zoe 2018" is listed twice in the bibliography section
• Does "Carter, Chris. "Review: Spider-Man"" have a pub date?

Rest looks good for me. Great job on this! Absolutely loved that game. – zmbro _(talk) 03:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, @Zmbro: I have made some changes based on your suggestions and here. I have Added Scope rows, Archived all sources, Removed duplicate reference (Delahunty-Light, Zoe 2018), and added the date on the reference (Carter, Chris. "Review: Spider-Man"). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks good to me. Happy to support. Great job to you! – zmbro _(talk) 18:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "the game received twenty-one nominations and went on to win three awards for:" - don't think that comma needs to be there
• "Spider-Man appeared on several lists of the top video games of 2018, including first place by Wired" (and so on) - this reads a little oddly to me. Personally I would use say "being ranked in first place by Wired" and so on
• "one of the top-30 games of the year" - don't need that hyphen there
• Any reason why "runner-up" is not coloured the same as second/silver? Surely being runner-up is the same as coming second? Or does that award have multiple runners-up?
• Note a refers to "the Metacritic". I think this should just be "Metacritic"
• Notes which are not full sentences don't need a full stop.
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments ChrisTheDude, I have made all the requested changes here except to the colour of the "Runner-up" Result since Runner-ups are given to multiple games. However, I have changed it so when it is sorted by Result "Second" will appear above a "Runner-up" result here. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now updating oppose rationale, see below. Please implement the award inclusion criteria as described by User:Dissident93 at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by Undertale/archive1 and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Request_for_comment_by_WPVG_editors_at_an_FLC. As a general note, I'm not pleased with the recent trend I'm seeing of editors unilaterally splitting out lists and then rushing them to FLC. The rush leads to sloppiness, as evidenced by comments above. FLC/FAC should be where a piece of content gets put through its final paces, not act as a first time peer review or copyedit. The best content on Wikipedia takes time and, more importantly, collaboration to get to that point. In this case, you also copied a tremendous amount of work from Spider-Man (2018 video game) (without attribution in the edit summary) without consulting or even notifying Darkwarriorblake who was the primary contributor there. FL is not an "easy chit" to add to your editing resume. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus for these type of Lists (Video game accolades) has been to include these as seen the last three FLs of this type:
    consensus. In regards to your second point, in hindsight I probably should have notified User:Darkwarriorblake but in end decided not to when I made a good-faith edit to the lead and was met with a rather rude edit summary [2]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:12, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • You don't get to avoid
      WP:MOS/VG guideline on it as of this writing), is not what you think it is. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Interesting, I have not heard of that guideline here before, I have added a contribution message on the Talk page since I cannot alter my previous edit summaries. In regards to your second point, yes consensus can change but there is currently no significant evidence of it changing. Perhaps an RfC could be set up?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 19:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Angeldeb82 too, they found most of those awards and were a star in sticking to the referencing structure used throughout the article to maintain its integrity as an FA. Given that most of the content was made in the initial edit, a lot of that work was probably done by Angel. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the clarification. Point stands that this FLC is tantamount to taking credit for other people's work. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose per failing FLC#3c: "In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." Per
  WP:SIZERULE, the main article Spider-Man (2018 video game) is only 43kb of prose and does not warrant a split of this nature. The lead is largely a copy of the parent article but the table should be merged back. No one was clamoring for this bold-split-and-immediately-nominate-for-FLC. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • However, this split is useful. Firstly, the reader can see an overview of the awards won by the game in prose on its respective article. Secondly, yes the readable prose on Spider-Man (2018 video game) is 43.8 kB. Thus is falls between 40 and 50 so there is no strict guidance on whether a split is useful. Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be split (it should be noted that this is a guideline so "It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply" and not a strict policy). However in this case with a large awards table the general consensus has been to split. For example: On
    WP:SIZERULE
    . However, the reasons why these tables have been split is not to with the readable prose it is to do with the large visual size they take up on the page. In general is more benefical for readers to have a concise overview of the awarads on the respective page and then to have a large table of all their awards on a separate page. Some other examples of this include:
  • The Last of Us readable prose = 36kB; accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.5kB
  • Red Dead Redemption 2 readable prose = 44kB; Accolades table (FL) readable prose = 2.8kB
  • Accolades table readable prose = 2.7kB
  • Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is an FLC about List of accolades received by Marvel's Spider-Man, not a FLRC on other FLs. It is not relevant that you seem to be arguing that those lists should be merged back to their main articles. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. To summarize: All of those examples were to show that they may not strictly meet
        WP:SIZERULE
        but despite this they still deserve to be standalone lists. This is becuase of the large visual space accolade tables have and thus it is generally better to have them on a separate page including for this FLC. If the the readable prose were simply plaintext (or standard prose with no table) then it would not have made sense to split however the large visual size these tables have it makes sense for them to be split off.
      • Furthermore,
        WP:SIZERULE
        . Since under 40kB "Length alone does not justify division" and over 50kB "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". Thus there is no guideline as to whether it should be kept or split.
      • Pinging @Rhain: for some input, since he knows far more about Video game accolades tables than me. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I'm seeing Harv errors on citations 34 and 79. It also looks like three quarters of the citations in the bibliography do not have a Footnote pointing to them. They should be pulled off into a further reading section. It is hard to find which citations in the bibliography are used and which ones are fluff to citation check. The lead is okay, but it talks more about the game's reviews than the contents of the table. Can you expand the third and fourth paragraphs a bit? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 05:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guerillero: I have changed the list based on your feedback. I have fixed the two harv errors and have removed citations in the bibliography that do not have a footnote pointing to them (instead of a further reading section since most of them can be found in the main article). Additionally, I have expanded the lede to encompass more awards. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Support quick work Spy-cicle --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. I know there's an outstanding oppose, but I'm going to be bold and discount it- this list is far too long in inches to be included in the parent article, prose size or not. I think that's partially due to the proliferation of video game awards shows, and means that basically any AAA game in the top 10-15 or so of the year could conceivably support an accolades list; that's not a result I like, as I don't think we should have accolades lists like this for any media, but the consensus to date has been that they are fine for films, and it appears the consensus is forming that they're fine for video games as well. --PresN 22:39, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
  goes through.