Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Go Vacation/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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 29 August 2019 [1].

Go Vacation

[edit]
Nominator(s): TheAwesomeHwyh 22:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second FAC I have nominated this article for. The previous FAC was withdrawn due to several issues, namely the quality of writing, and the length of the development section, both of which I feel have since been adequately adressed. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Go_Vacation_NA_box_art.jpg: source link is dead
  1.  Comment: Added archive. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment: I am not sure what "FUR" stands for. Do you think you could explain? TheAwesomeHwyh 18:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment: Oh, I think it stands for "fair use rationale". I will start work on expanding that now. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment: I have now expanded it. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it refers to the fair-use rationale - specifically in this case I'd like to see a more detailed "purpose of use" section to elaborate on why the image cannot reasonably be replaced with text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1.  Comment:​ Alright, I have now expanded that even further to explain why the article doesn't just use text. Do you think it is sufficent now? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately no. The issue is, most people who have played video games before are familiar with the concept of splitscreen and minigames, and will be able to picture the basic design of what that looks like - your task is to explain why seeing this image is better than just doing that, what specific value a reader gets from having the images that they don't get from just understanding these concepts. You might ask over at the Video Games WikiProject if anyone has some good examples of this. (Also, could you please not use a comment template in your replies? It's not necessary and if there are a lot of templates it can cause problems for the transclusions at WP:FAC). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I have done some expansion to the FUR, after taking a look at how File:Super Mario Odyssey, Seaside Kingdom.png implements its FUR, I have expanded it to hopefuly better explain why text alone isn't used. Also, sorry about the templates. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes

[edit]

This has dropped into the "Older" section without any substantial prose review. It will be archived soon if it does not begin to receive some attention. --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JDC808

[edit]

Will begin reviewing later today, but from a brief reading, I can already see that this needs some copy-editing. --JDC808 ♫ 05:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know you haven't done your review yet, but I just want to note that I have done some work to vary the sentence structure. It got pretty repetitive, expecialy in the "reception" section. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JDC808: Forgot to ping, sorry. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

*The lead says it's a 2011 game, but gives no indication of when in 2011 it was released.

*The lead says it was developed by Namco Bandai Games, but the infobox says it was developed by Bandai Namco Studios. Which is it?

*Last two sentences of first paragraph begin very similarly.

*The second paragraph says the surveys were "handed out". When reading that, I automatically envision the developers literally handing out paper surveys on the street and at events, etc. I'm sure this was not the case as it was probably done all electronically.

*Grammar issue in the second half of last sentence of second paragraph.

  • The infobox says the Wii version of the game was released in October and November of 2011, but the third paragraph says that the game had sold 1.82 million copies by June 2011. How did the game sale that many copies if it had not yet been released? I guess it's possible that the game had 1.82 million pre-orders then, but that is probably not the case here.
    • That was supposed to say May. Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, that still doesn't make sense, something must be wrong here. Hold on. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stranger yet, the document cited was published in June... TheAwesomeHwyh 23:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • ​Yikes. I think the Nintendo Life source got the release date wrong- problem is, thats the only source I know of that gives all the release dates. What to do? TheAwesomeHwyh 23:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • ​Looks like the store page for the Wii version over at Nintendo of Japan is long gone so I can't rely on that. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • ​Something fishy is going on with the translation. At the bottom of that page it says the 2011 release date is only planned. Is it possible that this is just a sales projection and it hadn't actually come out yet? TheAwesomeHwyh 23:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                • ​And that the price is undecided. I think this might just be a sales projection but I want your input before I remove it. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well, it makes no sense to say it sold 1.82 million copies months before the game even released. I tried putting the text into Google Translate to see what it said, but that didn't help. It's possible it could be a sales projection, but without proper translation of the text, it's hard to say. You're going to have to do some more digging for more sources or find an accurate translation of that source (and/or other source(s) for the release dates).
                  • Also, forgot to mention previously, but you do not need references in the lead as this information gets sourced in the body of the article. There are exceptions, but what you have here doesn't need them. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I got rid of the second ref in the lead, but I didn't get rid of the one which says it's the third game in it's series, as that's not actualy mentioned in the body. Am currently looking for a spot to put that information into. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gameplay

This section is mostly okay, but there are a few issues, such as grammatical and structural issues that a copy-edit would surely fix.

  • There are still issues here.
    • First paragraph, you tell us that there are four resorts. Then in the third sentence, you say that the player gains access to more resorts. Without reading further, this sounds as if there are initially four resorts, but more can be unlocked. When we get to the end of the second paragraph, however, it says the Mountain Resort is the final resort. So, are there four resorts with more that can be unlocked? Or are there just four resorts where in you start in the Marine Resort and you must complete "a set amount of minigames" to unlock the next?
    • You tell us that the player can earn "challenge stars" by completing actions. Why is this important? What do these challenge stars do?
    • Third paragraph: "The latter includes eight different categories. For instance, the "Grandmother" or "Grandfather" categories contain avatars of "Grandmothers" or "Grandfathers" respectively." This can be simplified so that it is not redundant -> "The latter includes eight different categories, such as "Grandmother" or "Grandfather".
    • Last paragraph, you tell us that the player gains access to a villa. That's fine, but you don't tell us what a villa is. It can somewhat be inferred what it is in the second sentence there, but it still doesn't actually tell us what a villa is.
    • Last sentence: "containing outfits for the player's avatars." Can a player have more than one avatar? --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Development

Essentially the same comment as Gameplay, though a couple of particular notes.

  • "Due in part to its large size, at one point in development the game had over 10,000 known bugs" - This is good information, but I don't think it belongs where it is currently placed. I think it should come a little later in the paragraph/section. Actually reading that whole paragraph, I think it should be rearranged some so that the order of the information makes more sense. For example, the first sentence is fine, but the next sentence should be "Development began shortly after We Ski & Snowboard had released..."
    • I've moved around the sentences there. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done some copy-editing to fix some structural issues, but the ordering of the information is still an issue. For example, in the second paragraph, it's talking about the minigames, then out of nowhere, we're told that this game was revealed at E3 2011. That should come much earlier. And I would actually move the sentence about the bugs to the end of the second paragraph. Also, last sentence of third paragraph, was the game released on iTunes, or the game's album? --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I fixed the two sentences you mentioned there- though I'm not quite happy yet with where I put the sentence on the reveal- I'll probably move that a bit more. The iTunes thing was a typo, fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the lead, it's mentioned that the surveys were done in North America, Europe, and Japan, but in the Development section, you say America, Europe, and Japan. Was it just America (as in the United States), or all of North America? --JDC808 ♫ 05:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reception

This is also mostly fine albeit some grammatical and structural issues. One thing I notice right off is that you have mixed the reception of the Wii version and the Switch version. This can be done better. For example, the second paragraph is a little confusing with this. The first couple of sentences are about the Wii version, then the next is about the Switch version. That is okay, but then the next sentence does not give any indication of which version its talking about (checking the date of the sources shows that its about the Wii version, but no one is going to know that unless they look at the source). And then the final sentence is about the Wii version again. One thing that would improve this is to move that sentence about the Switch version to the end of this paragraph. You do this a couple of other times, however, it's not clear which version its talking about. Without checking the sources, it would be assumed that all are talking bout the Wii version (with that one exception of when you stated it was the Switch version). There needs to be clarification. Speaking of sources, I noticed you have some of the exact same references in the reference list twice. There should only be one with a ref tag used for when you use a reference in multiple places.

  • Currently going through the "reception" section to fix the ordering issue. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I fixed it, though I'm not sure if it was a entirely neccisary change. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is necessary because it's two different versions of the game. They may be largely the same game, but there are differences, such as improvements over the original and the Switch version adding more minigames. That's one direct issue of the third paragraph here, because you start off by saying that "Anagund praised the amount of minigames available", but he's talking about the Switch version, which had more, and you don't tell us that. This paragraph is also oddly flipped. You have all the reception of the Switch version first, then the Wii version; should be the other way (and which version needs clarified). These same points are also an issue in the short paragraph about the villas.
      • Grammatical issues in this sentence: "Others also criticized for an apparent lack of quality, Nintendo Life's Ryan Craddock felt that they are "an undercooked version of things we've seen countless times before.""
      • I am still seeing the double reference issues I mentioned before. Take a look at the ref list. Refs 43 and 44, refs 40 and 46, and refs 9 and 45 are the exact same references, respectively (I believe those are the only doubles). --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • ​The Switch version doesn't actually have more minigames (it actualy removes two!) is there a part of the article that implies that? I don't think the animal photo thing actualy counts because its set up completly difrently from the rest of the minigames. But yeah, there are difrences- it's going to take a while to fix that so that it tells the reader what version they're talking about but I'll start now. Going to fix the double ref thing now. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am provisionally opposing this nomination as I'm seeing a lot of issues. This is a good GA and I commend you on attempting to copy-edit the article yourself, but I advise to submit this at WP:GOCE to get a completely new set of eyes on the text. By the way, don't let anyone tell you that this cannot be an FA because of its length, because it can. --JDC808 ♫ 22:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​I'm going to go through these soon but I just wanted to note that this article has gone through a copyedit before. I can request another if you think it wasn't enough. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I've done some copy-editing myself, but there are still issues present. Because of those issues, my oppose still stands, especially with the whole sourcing issue of the sales/release dates. Everything else can easily be fixed, but that has to be resolved before I can support this. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm going to nominate it for a second copyedit. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm 99% certain now that the issue was that the press release was a sales projection and not sales figures. I'm just going to remove that as the Nintendo Life source seems to be the correct one. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you still have it in the lead. --JDC808 ♫ 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell- I can't nominate this for a copyedit while the FAC review is ongoing. Is that correct? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can, but it may not be done in time. --JDC808 ♫ 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Lee Vilenski

[edit]

Unless this can be significantly fixed, a cursory glance doesn't have this at the FA boundary for me. Here's a little bit of what I saw:

  • WP:INFOBOXCITE. Why are there so many references in the infobox? Should be cited in prose.
  • Notes should be actual sentences.
  • second note isn't cited.
  • Lede isn't fantastically worded, and isn't WP:BROAD enough for me.
  • No cites in lede.
  • Up to four players can compete against each other in over 50 different minigames, which take place in four fictional island resorts. Different types of vehicles, such as trolleys or bikes, can be piloted to access resorts. Players can also customize their avatar, as well as their virtual villa. - this is the first mention of what the game is. I don't think it particularly gets across well what the game is about, or summarizes the game very well.
  • It hosts games such as table hockey, pie-throwing, skating, and mini golf - are these games? Is it not spelt "minigolf"?)
  • and Marine bike races.[13][16][17][18] - bordering on refbomb territory.
  • The gameplay section talks more about locales and the setting for the second paragraph. I feel like this could have been expanded into it's own section, or not slapped in the middle of this.
  • The latter includes eight different categories, such as "Grandmother" or "Grandfather". - why is this important?
  • This article is missing a release section.
  • The killer immediately is this sentence ". The Wii version of the game holds a 64/100 on review aggregator Metacritic, while the Nintendo Switch version has a 62/100" - For one, we don't mention scores that are in the table of reviews, and secondly this doesn't actually say what this score means.
  • The controls were praised by some, but criticized by others. - this says nothing.
  • Reviewing the Switch version, Alessandra Borgonovo praised the game's roller skates, saying that they were fun to use. - who is she?
  • Critics were mixed on the game's minigames. Sterling agreed - Jim Sterling is a critic. I don't see how he can agree when it's possible he reviewed it first. You also can't agree with mixed really.
      • This goes with something I brought up in my own review, as reception of the Wii version and Switch version were mixed together and with a couple of exceptions, it was not specified which version was being talked about. TheAwesomeHwyh has done better at deciphering which version is being cited, but it can still be improved (still think all Wii reception should be first, then Switch). --JDC808 ♫ 20:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is with the sales section? It's just a single sentence. The lead mentions sales figures for recently, and there is zero info on Switch sales. Feels super incomplete Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops, the bit in the lead should've been removed a while back. The sales section was a bit longer too, but the problem was that it turned out Google Translate was actually changing the meaning of the sentence. It actually didn't sell 1.82 million units, that was just a sales projection. I've removed that from the lead. The information that is left is the only actual sales information available, do you think I should just merge it fully into the reception section? TheAwesomeHwyh 18:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably. It just doesn't feel very broad. Is there no other info whatsoever? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - With two open opposes after this much time, it's clear this article needs work to bring it up to FA standards and this work is best done outside of the FAC process. Please work to address the points raised and renominate after a minimum two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2019 (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/Go_Vacation/archive2&oldid=913028158"