Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ToeJam & Earl/archive1
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 06:57, 6 July 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): bridies (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article candidates/ToeJam & Earl/archive1
- Featured article candidates/ToeJam & Earl/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
My first, tentative FA nomination; I think it meets the criteria. I believe it has enough content and research to satisfy the "comprehensive" criterion and any issues with the prose and layout can be addressed. bridies (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Initial comments:
- File:ToeJam & Earl split screen.png needs to be shrunk to a much smaller resolution to comply to WP:NFCC. (320-400px width is pretty much the maximum, aiming at a file resolution less than .1 megapixel as a rule of thumb.) Fair use rationale could use some beefing up; what were the unique elements that were the subject of critical commentary?
- Any idea how to shrink the resolution? I only know how to reduce the file size (PNGGauntlet). I've expanded the FUR, see what you think.
- Tag it with {{Non-free reduce}} and somebody (probably User:Melesse) will come along and do it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I got it. I also expanded the FUR, so look upon it and learn :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tag it with {{Non-free reduce}} and somebody (probably User:Melesse) will come along and do it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any idea how to shrink the resolution? I only know how to reduce the file size (PNGGauntlet). I've expanded the FUR, see what you think.
- The article needs a thorough copyedit, especially for syntax agreement and fluff/extraneous terms. Currently it does not meet criteria.
- I added a note at WP:VG. If no one is interested I'll try and go through everything again myself. bridies (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a decent representation of contemporary refs, but send me and email and I'll send you a few additional print resources I found with a cursory search.
- Sent you an email.
- I've replied with attachment. Nothing much, but some good tidbits for expansion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm in the process of acquiring a few more articles, so I'll do some expansion in due course. :P bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some comments from a few more reviews, although it only amounts to a few sentences. bridies (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I'm in the process of acquiring a few more articles, so I'll do some expansion in due course. :P bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied with attachment. Nothing much, but some good tidbits for expansion. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sent you an email.
- You really should think about formatting your references using {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}.
- Not doing it. :P I dislike the format the templates produce and I dislike the additional mark-up they clutter the edit box with. The issue of aiding consistency is all but moot since no one else has or likely will add any citations. The MOS states that any citation format is fine as long as it's consistent and that the use of templates is "neither encouraged nor discouraged". bridies (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:ToeJam & Earl split screen.png needs to be shrunk to a much smaller resolution to comply to WP:NFCC. (320-400px width is pretty much the maximum, aiming at a file resolution less than .1 megapixel as a rule of thumb.) Fair use rationale could use some beefing up; what were the unique elements that were the subject of critical commentary?
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - A very respectable first effort - well done! I've done some copyediting, and have a few points to raise besides:
- The lead describes it as an action game, but the last paragraph of the article seems to suggest that its genre is disputed or unclear. How can this be reconciled?
- Action game is the broadest term, and probably includes the others as subgenres. If you think it's problematic, I'd be inclined simply to remove the mention of genre from the first sentence. bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that the last paragraph of the lead, excepting the first sentence, adds much to the article. It seems that rather than just repeat the praise and criticism with which reviewers greeted the rerelease, you could either focus on how reviewers felt that the game held up over time or focus on differences between its initial reception and its 2006 reception.
- I added another sentence on how they felt it held up over time. I'm a bit wary of putting too much weight on the re-release, as the game was probably a much bigger deal when it was originally released (whereas the re-release often just got a mini-review in a "retro round-up" article or such). bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I echo David's points about the prose; I've done some, but I think getting two or three other copyeditors to go over it would be beneficial. In particular, parts of the article suffer from a pronounced case of Thesaurusitis and other parts are verbose and awkward. I'll try to do a little more later in the process, but the prose is definitely the biggest current sticking point to my supporting.
- The phrase "over-the-top appropriations" is in quotation marks, but there's no indication who it is that called them that. This is also true of numerous other phrases throughout the article; in most cases, I'd suggest paraphrasing and losing the quotation marks entirely.
- "The game's levels are randomly generated..." If memory serves, this is true only of one play mode.
- Yes, there is a "fixed mode" but it's not as beloved and kind of ignored by reviewers. I'll look through the sources again and see if there's any mention of it, so it can be clarified. bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I clarified it to "main mode", which is what the source says. bridies (talk) 04:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there is a "fixed mode" but it's not as beloved and kind of ignored by reviewers. I'll look through the sources again and see if there's any mention of it, so it can be clarified. bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The first paragraph of "Development" could use some dates for signposting.
- Added another date (1989) in... it seems Johnson met Voorsanger, formed the company, finished Starflight 2 and started work on TJ&E all within that year. bridies (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems awfully short for an FA about a prominent and successful video game. That said, there are no gaps obvious to me; I'll defer to Fuchs and the other video game writers on comprehensiveness issues.
- I would expect the article to be shorter than most because of its age. Like most 16-bit console games there's no real plot and thus no plot summary/section. The gameplay is pretty simple although its innovation means it's been commented on a fair bit. I will expand the reception section with a wider representation of sources though. It's hard to know what the length "should" be because older video games aren't well represented in terms of FAs. The main exceptions are hugely successful and influential games life Space Invaders or Donkey Kong and ToeJam & Earl doesn't really have that sort of status, successful though it was. bridies (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead describes it as an action game, but the last paragraph of the article seems to suggest that its genre is disputed or unclear. How can this be reconciled?
- That's it. Again, good job on what you've done so far. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. --Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed those sources. With regards to Sega-16 (which isn't reliable) I was citing Johnson's comments but the IGN Funkotronics source pretty much has it covered. bridies (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Conditional Support if the lead is expanded. Just one paragraph isn't enough, even for a short article. igordebraga ≠ 16:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Err, someone removed the lead and inserted it into the main body. I reversed the edit. bridies (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.