Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Joe Danger/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 SandyGeorgia 16:19, 7 November 2011 [1].

Joe Danger

[edit]

Joe Danger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): — Joseph Fox 02:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it (now) meets the criteria for doing so. After a fairly extensive peer review I think all of the debilitating errors have been eliminated. I look forward to your analysis/support. — Joseph Fox 02:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, no wikilink issues. GermanJoe (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 14:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - an interesting read, but some issues:

  • The second lead paragraph "Since Hello Games had not hired any public relations staff ..." is only partially covered in the main article body. All lead facts should occur in more detail in the main text again (see WP:LEAD as "summary" of the main article).
    Ah, alright, I will investigate further on this matter and be back to you within a few hours, with any luck. — Joseph Fox 11:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Just removed this reference, is the replacement okay? — Joseph Fox 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: "They relied heavily on word of mouth ..." - needs a source and clarification: was this a planned decision or just the consequence of lacking a PR team? (also needs elaborating in the main article body).
    Again, that's something I will look into, I'm sure I read that, perhaps did not give enough thought to inclusion. — Joseph Fox 11:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Same with this, is the replacement okay? — Joseph Fox 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you consider a separate "Release" section? The last 2 paragraphs of development (and some missing PR information, see above) could probably be separated with a little work (no deal-breaker, as other game article seem to merge release information aswell sometimes). GermanJoe (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Would a level three section within "development" be appropriate in this instance? Thanks for the feedback. — Joseph Fox 11:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the 3 reference videogame FAs in the peer review, 2 use "Release" as a level two section - it seems to be more intuitive than putting release under development, especially when you include release preparations and additional backgound information of the release in "Release" aswell. But whatever works best for a clear structure, depending on how you split which content. GermanJoe (talk) 12:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'll maybe see. The development section (in particular the second-last paragraph which discusses bugs-turned-features) is fairly woven so it may be hard to separate the two. — Joseph Fox 12:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments after reading through the complete article:

  • Lead "The game was released on the PlayStation Network in June 2010 after Hello chose to publish [it] solely with Sony Computer Entertainment." ==> missing word, or was the publication agreement for all future Hello games?
    Missing word. :) — Joseph Fox 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical Reception "Eurogamer's Tom Bramwell noted "not enough games are happy and colourful [like] this one" ==> Merging of 2 original phrases in 1 sentence is a bit too far from a direct quote. The original caption should be used (quotes should stay unchanged, whenever possible).
    Okay, that's fine. — Joseph Fox 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scott Alan Marriott of G4 TV berated ..." ==> "berated" is too strong as term here, see the source. He just "noted the lack of" or "critized" or "was disappointed".
    Got it. Will do. — Joseph Fox 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up "Following the relative commercial success of Joe Danger..." ==> i smell a WP:WEASEL :), is there any specific information available about the game's net profit? If not, it may be better to replace the "relative success" part with a neutral chronological approach ("n weeks after Joe Danger's release ....").
    Good point, will fix. — Joseph Fox 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this comes a section after "Joe Danger sold over 50,000 units in its first week on sale on the PlayStation Network..." so I'm not all that sure it's weasely at all, but I've just reworded anyway. — Joseph Fox 16:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotations - the article uses several very short quoted phrases. Please recheck, if some of them (when they cover uncontroversial, simple information) could be rephrased as normal prose. Quotes should be only used, where really needed - to support a controversial or subjective statement, or to repeat a distinct original phrase, that can't be paraphrased (a general remark without examples, as quoting is a matter of taste to a degree and needs case by case decisions). GermanJoe (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I might admit I'm a fan of the small quotes, as they back up the text with words, well, from the horse's mouth. I'll look into this. — Joseph Fox 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* I would note that Hello has chosen this week (to spite me, no doubt!) to announce that they'll be releasing the game on the Xbox Live Arcade as well. Working this into the article while keeping the standard of prose high will be a challenge, and the article may change substantially as a result. — Joseph Fox 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep us updated, what needs to be done for that change in your opinion. If greater changes are needed, you may want to consult a delegate for advice how to proceed with FA. GermanJoe (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've got it sorted now; would you care to have a look at the "Release" section and let me know if a) That is too detailed, or b) in the wrong place. :) — Joseph Fox 16:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added unsigned, pls sign your FAC declarations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, there's a cite error
    Think this is sorted. — Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the promotion for Joe Danger was garnered through interviews with the four developers of the game, in particular managing director Sean Murray" — "in particular" sounds a bit strange, and I'm a bit confused here. Do you mean "in particular" as in especially or most of the interviews?
    Missing a "with", methinks. — Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the release Murray gave a number of presentations revealing the difficulties and issues of trying to get work published." - comma needed after "release"
    I don't think there is; a comma only appears there if it is spoken in a certain way. I welcome other views on this.— Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Joe Danger received generally positive reviews on release" — replace "on" with "upon", as "on release" sounds weird
    It sounds fine to me?— Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Using leaderboard statistics, the game is thought to have sold over 109,169 units in its first three months on sale." — thought to have? Wouldn't it be clearer to say it was an estimate?
    Yeah, guess so. — Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Performing tricks awards points." — reword this to "Awards are given when tricks are performed" or something like that
    Except "awards" aren't given, "points" are "awarded".— Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other obstacles designed to hinder the player include conveyor belts, slowing the motorbike" — I'd recommend removal of the comma here and change "slowing the motorbike" to "that slow the motorbike"
    Good idea, done.— Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player's primary objective in each level is to collect as many "stars" as possible. A star is collected for completing an objective" — you use the word "objective" back-to-back, and you appear to mean differently each time — the first time, you mean what the objective for the game is, and the second time, you seem to say "objective" like game-speak (like wikispeak, except for games)
    I'll correct the consecutive use of "objective", but the meaning of that word you have picked up on is certainly not restricted to games.— Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other features included in the download were custom soundtracks, levels for single- and multiplayer" — since you used a hyphen after "single", logically you should put one after "multi", right? I'm not sure if that's in the MoS though
    Maybe; however, I believe it is "single-player" but "multiplayer" - my spell check agrees. I'll look it up.— Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A month after the release, Murray revealed at the Develop conference" — what's the "Develop conference"?
    It is now Wikilinked, but I will further expand.— Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October 2011, Eurogamer picked up on an Xbox Live Arcade listing for a Joe Danger: Special Edition on the Korean Media Ratings Board;" — you meant to put a period/full stop here, right?
    That was a save to prevent an edit conflict ;) — Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Others focused on links to Super Mario Bros., such as non-linear level progression" — wtf is "non-linear level progression"?
    See the peer review linked at the top. — Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Before its release" — personally, I think "prior to" would be a better wording
    "Before" is more concise, and we favour concise, afaik. — Joseph Fox 16:20, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first extensive FA review, so you can object to these comments. ;) HurricaneFan25 15:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The prose could be improved by changing "while". Try "although", "when" and "but". There are about nine occurrences in the article. Graham Colm (talk) 14:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have done, cheers. — Joseph Fox 15:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. The prose is far below FA standard and needs a fresh pair of eyes. There is redundancy throughout and unintelligible sentences such as this one in the Lead, "Most of the promotion for Joe Danger was garnered through interviews with the four developers of the game, in particular with managing director Sean Murray," what on earth does this mean? And similarly this "following the game's progress through both their official website and Sony's PlayStation Blog". The problem words might be "promotion" and "progress", but this is difficult to be sure about because the meanings are so elusive. I find this pretentious, "online multiplayer modus"; does this mean that the game could not be played online? Same problem here, "opinions were split over other modes". I tried to be helpful and started a copy edit, but the article needs a radical overhaul from top to bottom. This is not up to FA standards and would be an embarrassment to see on the Main Page. Graham Colm (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? I've gone through a peer review, three other users picking through the article for errors, and the prose is still not good enough? FA is so subjective these days it's a wonder anything ever gets promoted. But, fine, if you really do think it's that bad, fine. — Joseph Fox 03:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment: the word "game" is overused. Do a highlight-all search to see what I mean.—indopug (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not entirely sure how this can be avoided, if I'm honest, but I'll give it a shot. — Joseph Fox 12:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's now cut back on them (or at least the ones not in quotes, proper nouns or otherwise best kept as they are). — Joseph Fox 13:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - my above concerns have been addressed, comprehensive and well-structured, several checked sources are OK, a few final comments regarding minor prose issues:

  • "Doyle said that working as an independent meant making smaller games would be more cost effective, compared to working on them as part of a larger company." ==> the first half reads awkward with "working" - "making" as one phrase, even if probably correct. I read that sentence 3 times and still don't like it (unfortunately i have no idea for a better wording myself ...).
  • As pointed out, try to alter key terms as often as possible (game, work, develop, team, Hello, ...). GermanJoe (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recuse, and suggest withdrawal. I read Graham's oppose, went to the article, and saw multiple issues of same everywhere I looked-- this article should not be at FAC yet, and certainly should not be getting support until it's been copyedited. A few random samples (no, do not just fix these and continue on, they are only samples, and I believe this FAC should be withdrawn):

  • Joe Danger sold over 50,000 units in its first week on sale on the PlayStation Network.
    • Sold ... (while) on sale ... of course. — SandyGeorgia 16:43, 6 November 2011 — continues after insertion below
  • The team announced at the Develop Conference 2010 that they broke even on the day of release.
    • The team broke even?
      • Okay, the company did, minor issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox (talk • contribs) 16:56, November 6, 2011
        • Actually, no, the team *is* the company... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox (talk • contribs) 17:00, November 6, 2011
  • Based on Gamerbytes' statistics—which use the number of unique entries on a game's leaderboard to estimate the number of sales—it sold at least 68,455 units in its month of release.
    • Non-gamer, I have no idea what this sentence means. And, is "first" month of release intended?
  • The next month saw at least 16,619 new players; the exact number is uncertain due to limitations in leaderboard statistics, since only a certain number of scores can be held within a leaderboard for PlayStation Network games.
    • Again, no idea what this sentence is trying to say, but if the exact number is uncertain, I don't know why we're giving a number to such precision, and the final clause gives me no idea what this sentence is about.
      • Again, this is as verbose as I am willing to go to explain how this system works. An alternative would be appreciated, if you can bring yourself to give one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fox (talk • contribs) 16:56, November 6, 2011

Those are samples from one para only-- this article needs to be reworked, and I suggest that its GA status should be re-evaluated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is very, very difficult to explain these fully without reels and reels of text in baby-talk. Thanks, though, for lowering my confidence, that was obviously necessary (by this I refer to the very snide "not worthy of even a GA" comment). I don't know what I have done to upset you, but whatever it was must have been pretty serious. — Joseph Fox 16:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to be patronising but it is misguided to take these criticisms personally. All the above shows how premature this nomination is. Our job here is to maintain the high standards of Featured Articles – that's all. I think the process has been rushed and this is why there are so many issues that should have been sorted out before the article was nominated. The nominator's first edit was less than a month ago, some of our most gifted writers spend six months preparing an article for nomination. I have looked at the GA discussion, which was only 17 days ago and was, in my humble opinion, superficial. The Peer Review, by an experienced FA reviewer, spotted many of the problems that should have been highlighted at the GA review, but should have been left open a little longer and more reviewers canvassed. Graham Colm (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not upset at all, Joseph, and please don't take it personally-- with a bit more work, you could have a fine FA, but when you get a Support from a reviewer whose native language is German-- and there are obvious prose issues-- it doesn't help either you or the article or the FAC backlog, since the review will drag on longer than necessary and turn into peer review. An article with this level of prose issues shouldn't be a GA, and you (as a new FAC nominator) are being misled by such faulty reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With less value judgements (even an Oppose can be put in a forthcoming and constructive tone) and more specific examples or other advice those issues could be fixed faster. Last time i checked, offering specific examples for all observed problems was a requirement for actionable objections. I also don't see, how a nomination with a whole 3 days of duration adds to our backlog. Other articles with prose issues were given some time even during the FA nomination to fix them (some even got a whole copy-edit during FA nomination), why not this one? GermanJoe (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, Georgia (and I'm sorry to both you and Graham for letting it get to me), while I know you have a lot of FACs to juggle, would I be able to ask for a copyedit? I think the technical aspects of the article (refs, basic facts) are all there, so it wouldn't be all that difficult to give this a thorough look over for prose? Of course there's no need to accept this, but I must say that finding copyeditors is probably the most difficult aspect of this process, especially given I had no reason to believe the prose was anywhere short of the expected standard. (Also, the prose issues might be obvious to you, but the article reads utterly fine to me; 1A is a very, very finicky criterion.) — Joseph Fox 03:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • Apart from the issues raised by Graham and Sandy, which mainly focus on prose, I am puzzled by the matter of the Xbox Live Arcade release. We have Murray, in October 1910, calling the Xbox Live Arcade platform a "slaughterhouse for small developers". Then in the next line we find, a year later, that there is an Xbox Live Arcade listing for a Joe Danger: Special Edition. What happened to the exclusivity agreement with Playstation? No reason is given for Murray's apparent volte-face; an explantion is surely required.
  • On prose, there are two main issues: possible lack of clarity in some of the technical explanations, and instances of clumsy or awkward phrasing. I'm not sure that all the fixes could be done quite as quickly as Joseph imagines. I note that the article was not peer-reviewed before its nomination here; the GA review looks very superficial and did not focus at all on the prose. If Joseph will agree to withdraw this FAC nom, I promise I will give it a complete peer review and copyedit within the next couple of weeks, so that the article can return here later this month with a much better chance of success. In the end, I believe, that will be a quicker procedure than allowing the article to wait here for its likely archiving, a week or so down the line. Brianboulton (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the offer, Brian, and I will take it up on your talk page. I wish for this to be archived, and will be in contact with Georgia shorty to ask how this is done. Thanks. — Joseph Fox 16:13, 7 November 2011 (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/Joe_Danger/archive1&oldid=1078801859"