Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King/archive2

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 promoted by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 25 July 2024 [1].

Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, Wrath of the Darkhul King is a rather unremarkable video game. It has all the standard elements of a typical platformer and action games—so a lot of jumping around, beating up enemies, and solving rudimentary puzzles—but this time, it is told with a generic Buffy the Vampire Slayer story, in which Buffy Summers must yet again stop an apocalyptic event. The game received negative reviews and fell into obscurity, even for Buffy fans. Despite this, I still enjoyed working on this article. As always, any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise, this seems an appropriate notification to editors whom you could reasonably assume to have some interest in the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support again. I note that there's some quite extensive discussion of Buffy video games in this recent open access book, but it seems to focus on the 2002 game, only mentioning this one in passing. I'm honestly surprised there's not more academic work mentioning this game, but I suppose that just indicates how 'unremarkable' it is. (It looks like it's never been mentioned in the Buffyology journal Slayage, for example.) Josh Milburn (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and for the links. I hope that my nomination statement does not come across as flippant. I was trying to think of a solid way to discuss this game, and this was the best I could think of at the time. I was also surprised that this game did not receive more scholarly attention. Buffy is a big draw for research, and I could see this game fitting into larger papers on the Buffy video games as a whole or licensed games in that time period. From my understanding (and I could be wrong as I am admittedly not active in fandoms and such), it seems that only the 2002 game and Chaos Bleeds are the only Buffy games that are really remembered or discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (pass)

[edit]

NØ

[edit]
  • "THQ produced Wrath of the Darkhul King in a publishing agreement with Fox Interactive, and chose Natsume as the developers because they had been working together since 1999." - There is a WP:CINS issue with this sentence.
  • "Obstacles include pendulums, falling rocks, unstable platforms, electrified water, and pits with spikes; in certain areas, the player must punch or kick down walls to continue further" could benefit from a sentence split where the semicolon is.
  • "Willow identifies the individuals who stole talisman as Baruk demons" - should this be "the talisman"?
  • You are correct. I have added "the" into that part. Aoba47 (talk)
  • "Other reviewers praised the soundtrack as retro" - Do you think retro style would be an appropriate wikilink?
Glad to see this back here since I believed it deserved to be promoted the first time.--NØ 13:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: Thank you for the kind words and for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article further. I hope you are having a good start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are welcome. Apologies for retroactively adding a comment to my review, but I noticed that Craig Harris is cited after the sentence about Griffiths finding the gameplay formulaic.--NØ 20:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • The lead seems over long for a relatively short article, and MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests it should consist of "One or two paragraphs".
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I honestly forget about this aspect of the lead. I have condensed the lead into two paragraphs. Let me know if any further work would be needed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neat work.
  • "based on the supernatural series Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Maybe 'based on the supernatural television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer'?
  • "Natsume presented Buffy as an aspirational character to their young audience." Who does "their" refer to? Natsume?
  • "Furthermore, Buffy's boyfriend Riley Finn". Optional: consider deleting "Furthermore".
  • "to continue further." Suggest deleting "further".
  • "Each weapon can only be used a limited amount of times." Suggest "amount" → 'number'.
  • "a ritual along with the talisman." Maybe "along" → 'together'?
  • "and they added puzzles to vary gameplay." Suggest that one of "and" or "they" be deleted.
  • "and that could be defeated in unique ways." Should "that" be 'who'?
  • "such as being compared to the music in a ..." Maybe 'comparing it to the music in a ...'?

That's all I have. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I have missed something (or a change somehow did not save properly) or if there are any further areas that would benefit from revision. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far, and thank you again for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: " For the month of its release, the game was in the top ten most-ordered games on Amazon."; article: " For two weeks that month, it was in the top ten most-ordered games on Amazon." The lead doesn't seem to be reflecting what the article says here.
  • Thank you for catching this. I must have accidentally introduced this mistake while rewriting the article. I have revised it to clarify that it was the most-ordered for only two weeks, not for an entire month. Aoba47 (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The game was released on June 24 in North America and on June 27 in the European Union. For two weeks that month, it was in the top ten most-ordered games on Amazon." But there wasn't two weeks left in "that month" (June) after the release dates. (If pre-orders are included, I think you should explicitly say so.
  • I have revised this part to specify that these lists were for the week of X date. Since the first list was created on June 22, 2003, I would assume pre-orders must have been included, but I cannot say for certain. The citation does not explicitly mention pre-orders anywhere so I could not include that in the article as this information cannot be verified in the source. All the citations do is source the information to Amazon.com without any further clarification. Given the issue with the information, I could remove this part entirely. I cannot find this information in any other source. I did try to look up information on how Amazon collects this information, but it likely changed over the years since this game's releases. What are your thoughts on it? I wanted to get your opinion on it first as I could just be missing something obvious. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gog the Mild: Thank you for bringing both of these points to my attention. I have revised the issue with the lead, and although I have done a small copy-edit to the issue in the article, I am not entirely sure how to proceed as the citations doe not go further into how these numbers were calculated (i.e. whether or not pre-orders were included). Given the lack of clarity, I would be okay with removing this part, but if there are any other paths forward, then I would be open to any alternative ideas. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ho, hum. As you say, an odd one. I think that it is information which is worth including. If the sources aren't as helpful as we would like, we just have to do what we can with them. How you have thinks now seems to me to both read well and reflect the source. So I am happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and for your help. Hopefully, I did not cause any edit conflicts while I was trying to streamline my replies. Apologies for that. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]
  • "Because of rules placed on developing GBA games, Natsume could only have four bosses in the game" → do we know what these rules are/can there be a note added here? Heartfox (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, I could not find any further information about this. When I tried looking for more sources on this, I only found information about other types of restrictions or limits for the GBA hardware. Upon further reflection, I am a bit skeptical about this claim as another GBA game, Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories, had far more than four bosses, but I could also see different rules being applied to different companies and types of games. I have revised this sentence to attribute as something Natsume said themselves. Let me know if anything further should be done with this part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Everything looks good to me. Heartfox (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and for your help. I hope you are having a good weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LunaEclipse (Source review)

[edit]

Going to review this in the following days. lunaeclipse (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it. Take as much time as you need as there is absolutely no rush. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba: For the time being, would you mind checking out my Undertale peer review? lunaeclipse (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I am taking a small break from reviewing. When I start doing reviews again, I will make sure to prioritize either the peer review or FAC (depending on what stage it is in at that point). Apologies again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, ok, there's nothing off with the sourcing and ref formatting, and I'm very confident that the game citations and the press releases are fine per WP:ABOUTSELF as they're not contentious. Support on source review. — lunaeclipse (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, and apologies again for not being able to help with your peer review. Best of luck with it. Aoba47 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]
  • The artists were Tomoki Hamuro, Masashi Kudo, and Chie Yoshida -- just for context, these are visual artists who designed the game? Or are they voice artists/actors? Since the following statement mentions "they" were directed by... (Although it does mention in a section that dialogues were limited, so I'm assuming the former)
  • That is a good question so thank you for bringing it up. The "artists" wording is quite vague so I can understand how that is confusing. The game does not really feature voice acting, aside from grunts and the like. I have explicitly clarified that these individuals are visual artists in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • on June 27 in the European Union -- would it be better just to say Europe?
  • Agreed. To be completely honest, I am not sure why I used "the European Union" here rather than just "Europe". I looked through the source again to see if it specified just that area, and since it did not, I have revised the prose accordingly. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website calculated a 44/100 score based upon 16 reviews. -- Perhaps this can be clarified as "The website calculated a weighted average score of 44 out of 100 from 16 critic reviews."
  • @Pseud 14: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I have missed anything or if there is anything else that could be improved. I hope you are having a good weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a passing comment: Influenced by their family-friendly image, Natsume presented Buffy as an aspirational character to the company's young audience appears in the lede, coming from a source that says (Q:) Natsume are quite a family-oriented publisher. How does the Buffy game fit in to this? (A:) Our focus is always kids. We hope they dream of becoming heroes through our games. As far as I can tell this is a throwaway line in a random interview, hardly a defining statement from the company. I suggest removing this from the lede.

And now that I'm looking at the lede, ... chose Natsume as the developers because they had been working together since 1999 is uncorroborated by refs Harris 2003 and Natsume A: neither mentions the year 1999, and neither says anything about choosing the company because of any history. Perhaps the citations got mixed up. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hameltion: Thank you for your comments. I have removed the "family-friendly" part from the lead. I agree that it puts undue weight on a single statement in a single interview (from dead links no less). Should this part be removed from the article as well. I would imagine that part would run into the same issue, but I wanted to get your opinion before changing anything else.
As for your second comment, I did mix up two Natsume citations. Apologies for that. The correct citation (i.e. Natsume B) says the following: (Q:) How did you come to produce this game? (A:) Natsume have been worked on many THQ titles since 1999. While Power Rangers was in development, THQ asked us to develop Buffy. I revised the prose as the source does not explicitly say that THQ hired Natsume because of this history (which I imply in my reading of it, but I can see and understand why people would disagree with that). I have removed that part from the lead as it did not seem necessary there. Thank you again for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Edits look good. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 18:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Vacant0

[edit]

Will leave some comments here, after I take a look at the article. --Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources appear to be reliable, I've checked all of them at WP:VG/S.
  • I've noticed that there are footnotes with several citations in them. Instead of putting them inside ref tags, you could use the {{sfnm}} template!
  • Thank you for letting me know about this template. I was unaware of it, and I will keep it in mind for the future. I do not think that it is necessary to change the citations here though. The ref tags are used consistently here for multiple citations (and consistency is the most important thing when it comes to citation style), and I just do not see an obvious benefit of going through all these citations and changing them. That and I have used this method in previous FACs without issue. That being said, I will consider using this template for the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infobox is sourced.
  • You could add a caption for the image in the infobox. I do not know whether this is the NA or EU artwork, but you could style it as "North American/European packaging artwork". This is optional.
  • That is a good point. I looked through this again, and I could not find anything that distinguishes the cover as being specific to a region. I believe that the same cover art was used for the North American and European releases as I could not find any evidence to say that they were different. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose looks alright.
A very good article overall. Once these things get addressed, I'll change it to support. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vacant0: Thank you for your comments. I greatly appreciate them. I have added California to the article to support the category (and to clarify where this game takes place for readers unfamiliar with this show), but I have kept the ref tags for multiple citations. Again, I appreciate that you let me know about the {{sfnm}} template as I was unaware of it and I will play around with it for future projects, but I do not think it would be necessary to change here. Thank you again, and I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good to me, then. I'll change my vote towards support, because I believe that the criteria has been met. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a status update

[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I was curious about the status of this FAC as I have noticed that it has recently become of the older nominations on the list. There is absolutely no rush of course as it is best to get as many different perspectives and opinions as possible to make sure the article is in the best possible state. I hope you are all doing well, and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2024 (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/Buffy_the_Vampire_Slayer:_Wrath_of_the_Darkhul_King/archive2&oldid=1237030217"