Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)/archive1

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 March 2021 [1].

Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)

Nominator(s): GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an indie horror video game that became immensely popular after appearing in numerous popular Let's Play YouTube videos. It led to the launch of a very successful media franchise, which now includes several video games and books, with a film adaptation currently in development. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the fair use rationales should be expanded with something more informative than "n.a." See File:Sonic modern and classic designs.png for a decent example of how these should work. (t · c) buidhe 17:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve expanded these, let me know if I need to add anything else. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Spotchecks not done

What makes Cliqist a high-quality reliable source? Softpedia? Engadget? Armed Gamer? kotaku? Clickteam? Destructoid? WMPoweruser? ComicBook.com? Think Gaming? ScreenRant? Escapist? Player.One? Christian Post? International Business Times?
- Not the nominator here. I'll barge in to answer this. WP:VG/RS indicates consensus of Engadget, ComicBook.com (see that page's "Other reliable" section) and Kotaku being reliable; it considers the reliability of Destructoid articles situational and dependent on the author, and for Escapist, only finds volunteer-written articles from October 2017 to July 2018 of questionable notability with other articles definitely reliable. According to this page, for Softpedia, it considers all of its editorial reviews definitely reliable but news reports questionable. We can definitely say IBT isn't reliable one bit, and since IBT Media also owns Player.One, we can cross that one off the list of sources to use. Armed Chair is also considered unreliable by WG/RS because it's a shitty self-written blog all done by one dude. Screen Rant's reliability has been heavily debated, with strong arguments on (excuse the cliche saying) both sides]. Also, I see zero issue using an interview with the game developer by the proven official website of the game's engine, and remember: primary sources aren't automatically unreliable sources. WMPowerUser isn't looking two good. The articles I'm seeing are written by the same two people, inexcusable for a site where you can submit articles XD. And let me guess, Christian Post is being put into question because it's pro-Trump and owned by evangelicals, right? HumanxAnthro (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Cliqist, Armed Gamer, WMPowerUser, Player.One, Escapist, Softpedia, Screen Rant, International Business Times and Christian Post as sources. Kotaku, Engadget, Destructoid and ComicBook.com are all used as sources in current video game featured articles (see Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario Galaxy). I would also say Clickteam is an acceptable source as per the above user's reasoning. As for the Think Gaming source, I cannot find any other source with information about sale numbers for the game. The source seems okay, but I can't prove it to be a high quality source. Do I need to remove that part of the Sales section altogether? GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being used in other articles or being an interview are not in themselves sufficient rationales; see this page for some pointers on rationale. If you can't find alternative sourcing or a reason why that one should be considered high quality, then yes you may need to remove material cited to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget is owned by AOL and is written by a team of 45 editors (many with quite a few years of experience- see their about page). It was listed as one of the best blogs of 2010 by Time Magazine and has won two Webby awards.

What are the criteria for Webby awards? What is the experience of the specific author here? What is the editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the criteria. The author of the article has written for online outlets since 2008, including four years as a senior reporter for Joystiq. I can’t find any info about the website’s editorial policy. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kotaku was listed as the top gaming blog by CNET in their top 10 list and was in Technorati's top 100 blogs list. The website has also been cited by the New York Times (see this article) and The Guardian (see this article).
ComicBook.com is part of Viacom CBS, which also owns Paramount Pictures, the CBS Entertainment Group, among others. See their about page.

What is the site's editorial policy? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find any info about this. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Clickteam website is the official website for the company behind the game development software Scott Cawthon used to create Five Nights at Freddy's, is this not enough to show its reliability?
I'll remove Destructoid and Think Gaming as sources, as I can't find any indication of their reliability. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are you deciding when to include publisher?

I'm skimming through the reference lists of other video game FAs, and it seems publishers are generally not included. Should I remove publishers from the page's citations altogether? GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 10:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to match citation format to any other page if you don't want to, you just need to be consistent within this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed mentions of a publisher from all references. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FN7 is missing date

Fixed. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FN22 author is listed incorrectly

Fixed. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FN26 is missing author

This reference has been removed (see above). GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FN32: link goes to Yahoo and credits AFP - where is the Relaxnews credit coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 10:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFP isn't a work, it's an agency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. In this case, what should I put as the publication? Yahoo News? GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 08:41, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 04:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes was added to replace one of the sources listed above - what makes this a high-quality reliable source? See entry at WP:RSP

Although the writer of the article is labelled as a “contributor”, he has been writing professionally for 12 years, and has written for The New York Times and The Atlantic, among others. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Betsy Brey or Brey Betsy? And this is a book so should include a publisher

Fixed. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 04:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:FNAF1logo.jpg and File:FNaF 1 GameplayScreenshot.png have appropriate FURs
No issues with File:MCM London May 2015 - Freddy Fazbear (18035035122).jpg

Media assessment is complete. I might come back later with other comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Ultimate Boss

I am so glad you nominated this article for FA. Fnaf was a HUGE part of my childhood. I remember when I made videos of myself playing the game and uploading them to YouTube. Ah, good times. I'm getting off track. The article looks great; just some minor comments. Idk about the Toy News. Is that reliable? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IGN looks like a very reliable resource. I am going to support the article for promotion. Great job on making the article for one of best games in history so freaking amazing! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from HumanxAnthro

The first sentence in the lead does not meet WP:VG/GENRE "Five Nights at Freddy's is an indie point-and-click survival horror video game.":
- (1) There are more than two genres stated.
- (2) Indie is not a genre... I'm talking to you, too, music and film industry
- (3) The inclusion of "point-and-click" as a genre contradicts what is said in the gameplay section. "Five Nights at Freddy's is a survival horror video game with point-and-click elements." Having elements of a genre doesn't make it of that genre.
Can I just say I'm skeptical of any source that's written by students at a college?.... Specifically, LiveWire
I'm also having skepticism about IndieGameMag. It says it's published by "IGM Media," a company I can't find anywhere else; additionally, there are infrequent news pieces, it hasn't been active or announced anything (even discontinuation) since July 2020, and the layout is lame and unprofessional (there's only a short "about" section that establishes little about its editorial standards, plus a porn games section that's in the open for anyone to click on with zero barrier). Also, all of the "news pieces" are credited either to "indiegamingmag" or "Ryan Brown." Totally not self-published, amirite? HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"2019, ports were released for Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.[23]" No specific release dates for these, even though they're stated in the infobox?
Although, why is the Steam date not in the infobox?
The Reception section is non-engaging to read and has three major problems
- (1) The prose mentions the scores of reviews even when they're already listed on the ratings template, causing redundancy.
- (2) It's a quotefarm, with the farm being of paraphrased statements instead of full-on quotes, as there is no consolidation of frequently brought-up opinions.
- (3) I don't think there's these few critically opinions on what was basically a massive hit. You know critical opinions are also included in others sources besides the one Metacritic lists, right?
- (4) In fact, Metacritic gives me reliable reviews from GameSpot, Eurogamer Italy, Games.cz, and Ragequit.gr that are not represented here, plus GameRankings show me a Gamezebo review of the PC version. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (5) A MobyGames lookthrough also gave me reviews from NintendoLife, DieHard GameFan (a resurrection of GameFan), Gamesphere, IDNES, and Jeuxvideo.
There is no representation from academic or scholarly literature about this game. Took me a simple Google Scholar to find tons of it.

While I haven't read the whole article in depth, the incompleteness and reception section of this article is the hammer that strikes an Oppose for me. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Almost every sentence from the second paragraph of "Gameplay" begins with "the", which feels monotonous.
"notably" from "most notably the two hallways" is inapporpriate WP:POV and WP:EDITORIALIZING
"restaurant’s main animatronic" → "restaurant's main animatronic" per MOS:CURLY
Is it known when development concluded, or even when that first began?
Five reviews in "Reception" isn't nearly enough for a highly famous and popular game like this. You should aim for at least twice as many.
You mention FNAF "was the top-selling game on Desura for the week ending August 18, 2014", so how many copies did it sell?

Unfortunately, I must oppose, mainly because reception really needs to be expanded. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

This is four weeks in and only has one support. If you are aware of any experienced reviewers who may be prepared to look at this, can I encourage you to approach them. Lacking a detailed review or two in the next four or five days, I am afraid that this is likely to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly not currently a consensus to promote. I would suggest working on it off-FAC, possibly with support from the opposers. There will be the usual two-week wait before another nomination can be made.

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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