Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Batman: Arkham City/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 GrahamColm 22:41, 16 January 2013 [1].

Batman: Arkham City

[edit]

Batman: Arkham City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello kiddies, Joker here, welcome to the last Featured Article nomination of your lives, but as my old pop used to say...if you gotta support one FAC nomination, do it with a smile. At least I think that's what he said, I do prefer to keep my options open after all. Let me tell you allllllllllllll a little story about why you should support this FAC nomination, don't worry about the poison gas or the explosives they're just decorative. Honest. The article as you can clearly see is detailed and fully comprehensive of the material, an oh-so-snug size in terms of prose, uses images effectively and not overzealously, is well-written, and encompasses all available and sourced information, and I do so love sourced information. Reminds me of my first henchman, he was a gas! Or a gun, a knife? Who cares, guy was a loser anyway. Anywayyyy... Oh I can't take all the credit, though I certainly tried, I have to thank User:Grapple X, User:Y2kcrazyjoker4, User:-5-, User:JHunterJ, User:Masem and...Cluebot NG? Hmm... now that's crazy! Read, and hopefully you will love and support! - Joker (really this guy-> Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Extended discussion, multiple noms
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


  • Comments Images: File:Batman - Arkham City screenshot.JPG is 0.17 megapixels. Is there a reason it needs to be so big? WP:NFC recommends no more than 0.1 megapixels for most cases. The description for the image does not detail who the copyright holder is, and the description is very poor. Same goes for File:Batman - Arkham City combat screenshot.JPG. File:Batman Arkham City Armored Edition Cover.jpeg is extremely high resolution and is used purely for decoration. I recommend it be removed entirely from the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If Music of Batman: Arkham City is notable enough to have its own article, why does the game only have a single sentence about it?
    • Infobox release dates don't mention the OS X release. And the AU Windows and Wii U dates are conspicuously lacking references.
    • In the Sequel section, Variety should be italicized as it is a magazine.
    • Refs (based on this version): Many of the refs italicize the website names even when they are not also magazine publications. I am not really sure what the correct method is on this. I have seen some articles just put the website names in the work=Joystiq parameter, and I have seen others put it in italics in the work=''Joystiq'' parameter so that they won't be displayed in italics. I do not know which is correct, so please let others give their opinion before changing.
      • The refs do not have a clear style on when to link the work and publisher fields. Either link the first occurrence in the refs, or link always. I prefer always because then there is nothing to maintain (such as if you move a ref around).
      • In the future, please do not just set accessdate to the publish date.
      • Ref #2 was accessed before it was published.
      • Ref #2 should link to Joystiq and AOL.
      • Ref #4 should link to Eurogamer and I don't think the publisher is necessary (same with the other Eurogamer refs)
      • Ref #7 should probably mention it's from Nintendo.com, but I am not sure so maybe someone else has an opinion?
      • Ref #7 should not list a publish date unless we know it was published then.
      • Ref #8 should link to MTV and Viacom
      • Ref #11 should link to Computer and Video Games and Future Publishing
      • Ref #12 should link to GameSpot and CBS Interactive
      • Ref #13 seems to use a different referencing style for Work. Publisher.
      • Ref #14 links to GameSpot but not CBS Interactive.
      • Ref #15 should mention in the title that it is a Preview.
      • Ref #16 should link to IGN and News Corporation
      • Ref #17 was accessed before it was published. Should link to Financial Post
      • Ref #21 should include publish date and access date and should link to Imagine Publishing
      • Ref #22 is a forum post, not reliable for anything, and should be removed
      • Ref #28 should link to Kotaku and Gawker Media
      • Ref #30 should probably use {{Cite interview}}
      • Ref #31 is not reliable and should be removed
      • Ref #33 should link to PC Gamer
      • Ref #36 I have no idea what this means
      • Ref #40 Why is this site reliable? Who owns the site? What editors maintain it? Where is their editorial policy? Can anything be said for its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
      • Ref #41 should link to Electronic Gaming Monthly
      • Ref #43 needs a publish date
      • Ref #44 Why is this site reliable? Who owns it? What editors maintain it? Where is their editorial policy? Can anything be said for its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Additionally, the citation needs a publish date.
--Odie5533 (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
    • Comments Images: File:Batman - Arkham City screenshot.JPG is 0.17 megapixels. Is there a reason it needs to be so big? WP:NFC recommends no more than 0.1 megapixels for most cases. The description for the image does not detail who the copyright holder is, and the description is very poor. Same goes for File:Batman - Arkham City combat screenshot.JPG. File:Batman Arkham City Armored Edition Cover.jpeg is extremely high resolution and is used purely for decoration. I recommend it be removed entirely from the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed the WiiU image, didn't add it and wasn't a fan, knew someone from FAC would call for it to be removed so saves me being the bad guy. Shrank the other two images, ideally I wanted to replace both with a short clip of combat but not one available at the moment. have tried to improve the rationale for the remaining two images, but again I didn't add them and am not attached to them if one has to go. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Music of Batman: Arkham City is notable enough to have its own article, why does the game only have a single sentence about it?
      • Infobox release dates don't mention the OS X release. And the AU Windows and Wii U dates are conspicuously lacking references.
      • In the Sequel section, Variety should be italicized as it is a magazine.
      • Refs (based on this version): Many of the refs italicize the website names even when they are not also magazine publications. I am not really sure what the correct method is on this. I have seen some articles just put the website names in the work=Joystiq parameter, and I have seen others put it in italics in the work=''Joystiq'' parameter so that they won't be displayed in italics. I do not know which is correct, so please let others give their opinion before changing.
        • The refs do not have a clear style on when to link the work and publisher fields. Either link the first occurrence in the refs, or link always. I prefer always because then there is nothing to maintain (such as if you move a ref around).
        • In the future, please do not just set accessdate to the publish date.
        • Ref #2 was accessed before it was published.
        • Ref #2 should link to Joystiq and AOL.
        • Ref #4 should link to Eurogamer and I don't think the publisher is necessary (same with the other Eurogamer refs)
        • Ref #7 should probably mention it's from Nintendo.com, but I am not sure so maybe someone else has an opinion?
        • Ref #7 should not list a publish date unless we know it was published then.
        • Ref #8 should link to MTV and Viacom
        • Ref #11 should link to Computer and Video Games and Future Publishing
        • Ref #12 should link to GameSpot and CBS Interactive
        • Ref #13 seems to use a different referencing style for Work. Publisher.
        • Ref #14 links to GameSpot but not CBS Interactive.
        • Ref #15 should mention in the title that it is a Preview.
        • Ref #16 should link to IGN and News Corporation
        • Ref #17 was accessed before it was published. Should link to Financial Post
        • Ref #21 should include publish date and access date and should link to Imagine Publishing
        • Ref #22 is a forum post, not reliable for anything, and should be removed
        • Ref #28 should link to Kotaku and Gawker Media
        • Ref #30 should probably use {{Cite interview}}
        • Ref #31 is not reliable and should be removed
        • Ref #33 should link to PC Gamer
        • Ref #36 I have no idea what this means
        • Ref #40 Why is this site reliable? Who owns the site? What editors maintain it? Where is their editorial policy? Can anything be said for its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
          • I did ask at the Reliable Sources noticeboard though received little feedback. I contacted them and below is the response I received. None of the information is questionable or controversial and the site itself seems as professional as many others. Obviously its up to others if it is sufficient but I see no reason to doubt its information especially when corroborated by other pieces of individual information; there are no cast there that are not listed in the credits for example. If there were any other source whatsoever I would happily change it but know that I have spent hours, literally, trying to find the information and this is the only place that isn't IMDb that possesses it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Mark,
          • Thanks for the inquiry! No our content is absolutely not user submitted. We rely on end credits or direct contact with the voice directors, voice actors or people involved with the production of the tv show, movie or game.
          • Now, that being said we have not completed the process of verifying ALL of the 80,000+ credits on the site because well to be honest that takes a lot of time. You can tell which ones we have publicly verified by noticing if the credit has a green check mark on the page like you see here:
          • http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/video-games/Batman-Arkham-Asylum/
          • The person in charge of the Arkham City game has apparently not uploaded the credit images/confirmation at this point but I will contact him so he gets that up so you will be able to see exactly where we got our information from.
          • Thanks, and please let us know if you have any other questions or need further explanation.
          • We also have no problem with you referencing/linking to our pages if you need to for citation reasons.
          • - BTVA Admin Team"Darkwarriorblake (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ref #41 should link to Electronic Gaming Monthly
        • Ref #43 needs a publish date
        • Ref #44 Why is this site reliable? Who owns it? What editors maintain it? Where is their editorial policy? Can anything be said for its reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Additionally, the citation needs a publish date.

Why is there bolding all over this page? Bolding is typically reserved for declarations of support and oppose, and excess markup (including bolding) should be avoided throughout wikipedia, per WP:TALK. Could the editor who is bolding here please remove it? Also, if that editor would sign his/her posts, we'd know who it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: by JDC808

  • In the lead, third paragraph, I suggest moving the sentence about the game's release on Wii U and OS X to the end of the first paragraph.
  • Third paragraph again, I suggest to change this sentence "It was the recipient of several awards including Game of the Year, Action game, Action Adventure game, Adventure game and best original music score." to "It was the recipient of several awards, including Game of the Year, Best Action game, Best Action Adventure game, Best Adventure game, and Best Original Score from different media outlets." Only two of the awards were defined and it didn't say where the awards came from.
  • In the gameplay section, it doesn't say it's third person perspective, or any perspective.
  • Same section, first paragraph, this sentence "Some gadgets obtained in the first game are present at the start of Arkham City, " wikilink "first game" to Arkham Asylum.
  • Last paragraph of gameplay, wikilink "stereoscopic 3D" and any other technical terms, and if the Wii U's touchpad controller has an article, wikilink that too.

P.S. I liked the nomination summary lol --JDC808 ♫ 06:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Glad someone finally mentioned the nomination summary :D. I've made all the changes excerpt for the first one, I believe it is important to describe the game from its initial launch and add later releases at the bottom, allows them to be grouped with the iOS game and the Game of the Year info, prevents the opening sentence becoming cluttered and a slight logical issue with calling it a 2011 game in the same section where you say two formats were released over a year later. Doesn't seem to have been an issue yet. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Er..why have you closed this? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2013 (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/Batman:_Arkham_City/archive1&oldid=1138455449"