Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War: Betrayal/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 promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

God of War: Betrayal

Featured article candidates/God of War: Betrayal/archive1

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 18:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a nice, short article and I believe it meets, or at the very least, is close to meeting the FA criteria. Any issues that there may be can be easily taken care of. JDC808 ♫ 18:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Darkwarriorblake

Support: I have to run to work right now but to start with, there is a duplicate link to God of War II in the Development section (the first under setting and characters). Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, got it. --JDC808 ♫ 08:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the release date, was it only released in North America? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure. The sources didn't make it clear. It was for cell phones, so it may have been worldwide. Removed North America. --JDC808 ♫ 20:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done

What makes this a high-quality reliable source, given that it's a forum user review?
What makes Modojo a high-quality reliable source?

As to both of these, the reviews on the page, including those two, are the only reviews for the game. Modojo is one of the 3 listed at GameRankings. The Escapist is the only other review I could find. --JDC808 ♫ 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but being the only reviews that exist doesn't make them high-quality reliable sources. Do these sites have any kind of editorial policy? Are these authors noted as experts in their field? Do clearly reliable sources cite or refer to these sites? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I could not find anything that could defend them as "high-quality reliable sources", I have removed them. --JDC808 ♫ 18:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't repeat cited sources as external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. --JDC808 ♫ 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix

Comments: Checklinks are good, no broken links. That being said, I do have some comments and nitpicking to have resolved.

**Considering really only one paragraph in the Gameplay section is really about combat, is a subsection really necessary?

- Consider adding first sentences to each of your paragraphs in the Reception section after the first one. Right now it's unclear why these paragraphs are separated, and the repeated use of "someone said" or "someone stated" does not read well. Placing a topic sentence explaining, say that the game received praise for this, this and this; other reviewers criticized this and this, etc. Also, the use of starting every sentence in the first paragraph of the Reception section with a name and what website they're of also makes the section harder to read.

I'm sure this isn't all-inclusive, but it should get you started. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will work on this later this evening.~~ --JDC808 ♫ 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-section was to keep a consistent article layout across the God of War articles. Went ahead and removed it.
Removed "allowing" and reworded so that the backstory mention is in the next sentence.
Merged paragraphs. Further comments on this?
The way paragraphs are started is inline with my two previous FACs (which both are now FAs). With that being said, I've done some work. --JDC808 ♫ 06:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looking much better. Only thing I have left is that "context sensitive" in the Reception should be hyphenated to "context-sensitive", but I'm sure you'll get that in the blink of an eye. Well done. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 18:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know if that should be hyphenated because each of the game's manuals don't use a hyphen. --JDC808 ♫ 19:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to violate WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if it helps to indicate, try doing a search here on Wikipedia for the phrase "context-sensitive". There are several articles that use the hyphenated phrase. I could see either working, so if other Wikipedians disagree with using the hyphenated phrase, I wouldn't mind leaving it as it is. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}^{remember the past...} 20:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I searched Wikipedia via Quick time event and found this page: Context-sensitive user interface. Although the article's title and a sub-section have a hyphen, every time "context sensitive" is used (except for one spot inside quotations), it doesn't have a hyphen. --JDC808 ♫ 03:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted at WP:VG to see what others think. --JDC808 ♫ 03:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphen was added. --JDC808 ♫ 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from czar

Comment. At a glance, the article is marked with "Use American English" but I saw "manoeuvres" and no commas after "e.g."—doesn't necessarily require a full copy edit, but something to consider. czar · · 08:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of "manoeuvres" and the commas. --JDC808 ♫ 15:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Torchiest

I'm going to try to give this a thorough review over the next week or so, but I have a few initial comments. I think you can, after the first mention in the lead and body, remove the God of War part from the name and just refer to it by the part after the colon: Betrayal. I changed that in the lead already. Something else minor in the lead: is it necessary to say "Although released for a mobile platform, it retains the action-oriented approach of its predecessors..."? Is there a particular reason those two things (mobile platform and action-oriented gameplay) would not be a match? You also say essentially the same thing in the very next sentence: "Despite its platform of release". Maybe you should find a more specific thing to contrast the gameplay against, rather than the platform, which is a bit vague for a non-gamer. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was unclear, but I had worded it like that because the two games prior to this (God of War I and II) were on a home console with full functionality as opposed to the limitations of the mobile platform (at least at that time). I'll try to word it better. The reviews were also essentially comparing it to the console games with respect to the mobile platform. --JDC808 ♫ 04:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the origins of the monsters at the very end of the gameplay section seems a bit out of place. That should be moved up into the combat explanation, I think. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --JDC808 ♫ 23:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "features an authentic 2D rendition" in the development section sounds like something that would be in a press release, and isn't necessarily very informative for the reader. Is there a better way to explain that concept? —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 05:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded a little bit. --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished copy editing the article, and it seems to be in good shape. I've spot checked a few sources. The Blogcritics archived copy seems broken. It only has the first page. Clicking the link to go to page two gives you a 404 error. I notice the original page is all on one page though. Perhaps you could recreate the archived copy. I checked a handful of other sources, and they looked okay. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was weird. I've rearchived it and it appears to be correct now (it didn't make it two pages this time). --JDC808 ♫ 04:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the caveat that I'm a member of WP:VG. I've made a few more minor prose changes and checked the two non-free images, which have acceptable rationales. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from hahnchen

~~Oppose~~

I was just going to make some comments, but I think the first point is oppose-worthy, but easily fixed.

Who developed it? Open the game, and look at the credits. Mobygames suggests that a lot of the development was was Sony Online Entertainment (who you do not credit) - http://www.mobygames.com/game/god-of-war-betrayal/release-info. It looks like Javaground did the grunt work, but game development is not just the code. You could email Phil Cohen (a Sony guy) for clarification.

I don't own the game (other than a PC emulation I've yet to play, I watched the entire game on youtube though). Added SOE-LA as a developer. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mobygames also suggests that art was outsourced to WayForward Technologies, which is probably worth a mention.

Mentioned. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any external links? Nothing of worth on archive.org? If I wanted to get the game, can I still do that?

Can't answer last question as all I get when I Google search is "download for free etc." Put IGN link in External Links. Nothing at archive.org. Also, SOE use to have a web page for the game, but not anymore. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Gamerankings. It covers fewer reviews than the article does.

I disagree. I like having an aggregate score (Metacritic doesn't have one) even with the second part of your comment being true. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to include IGN's Wireless Game of the Month award and Wireless Platform Game of the Year award, giving more context to its reception.

Added. Didn't know about these. They never popped up in my searches. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final paragraph is really clunky. Look at the first sentence, it features the phrase "limitations of a mobile platform" followed later by "the confines of the platform". I like the autosave comment, because the phone interruption is unique to mobile, but again, the delivery is clunky. Try getting rid of the quotes and just paraphrasing it.

Done some work. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hahnch e n 00:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't cite Mobygames as a source for the same reasons we don't cite IMDb. A primary source (the game's credits) is enough. I suggest putting Mobygames as an external link instead of IGN or allgame.
I don't see Gamerankings as being useful, when the reader can just glance at your list and get an ever better overview. But that's just my personal opinion.
I see above that you dropped Modojo. I think that's a mistake. Modojo are part of Gamer Network, the same company that operate Eurogamer. Modojo's editorials have featured on Gamasutra, a professional industry website. They're a reliable source. If there are lots of reviews to choose from, Modojo would not be on the top of my list. But you don't have lots to choose from.

I had struck the oppose, after you got the developer right. But have just unstruck it after reading the Modojo review, you need that in. He makes important points about the gameplay that you haven't covered. - hahnch e n 00:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hahnch e n 00:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I took care of these, let me know. --JDC808 ♫ 03:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose worthy comments addressed, !vote stricken. But there's still some clunky prose to address. For example, 'Modojo's Justin Davis said that although it "isn't too bad", it "isn't great".' doesn't tell the reader anything about the game. - hahnch e n 19:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ~~I'll look at it.~~ --JDC808 ♫ 17:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added a little more to clarify his statement. --JDC808 ♫ 18:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Got round to looking at it again. - hahnch e n 12:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment

Healthy level of expert support and all checks done, which is great, but like to give it a bit longer to see if we can't get a review from outside the gaming arena as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DivaKnockouts

Sources:
- FN1: No italics to "IGN" (not a printed source) per WP:CITEHOW.
- FN2: No italics to "Verizon Wireless News Center". See above
- FN3: See FN1.
- FN5: See FN1.
- FN6: No italics to "1UP.com" see FN1.
- FN9: Same here.
- FN10: Same here.

The rest of these need to be fixed as well. Any work that is not a printed source (ex. Newspaper, printed report, book etc.) does not need to be italicized. There is also some WP:OVERLINK in the references as well. — Diva Knockouts 17:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never had this issue before. The cite web format automatically italicizes them. What are you referring to in regards to overlink? Reading past discussions on that page (and how I learned) is that WP:OVERLINK is geared more towards prose, and references should be consistent. --JDC808 ♫ 17:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the cite web template italicizes them. Though when citing sources, non-printed sources aren't to be italicized. I guess you right on the references part, though I'm going but what I've seen and experienced. Some editors do it different ways. — Diva Knockouts 17:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. ~~I'll work on the italics.~~ --JDC808 ♫ 17:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italics fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 18:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job:) — Diva Knockouts 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 18:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dom497

"Throughout the game, the player can find green, blue, and red chests, and each chest contains orbs of the corresponding color" - Saying the word chest the second time doesn't sound right (in my opinion).--Dom497 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...removed. --JDC808 ♫ 19:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The character art and animation were done by WayForward Technologies. The only audio components are an orchestral score in the main menu and background sounds (e.g., clashing weapons)." - Ref?--Dom497 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A previous reviewer said that a primary source (the game's credits) would be enough. Added that. --JDC808 ♫ 19:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will support after these two comments are addressed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Dom497 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 19:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 15 June 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.