Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo/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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:51, 31 October 2009 [1].

Star Wars: Episode I: Battle for Naboo[edit]

Nominator(s): --TorsodogTalk 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I've been editing this article for awhile now. I had it PR earlier this year, and it passed GA a few months ago. I've asked for some ce help recently, and have gotten a bit. Most of the article is based off of the very similar Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, which passed FAC earlier this year. I think we should be good to go, but I'm sure you will all find some problems. You always do :) And... JUDGE. --TorsodogTalk 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to strengthen the fair use rationales. Date formats are consistent Month Day, Year, which is good (I don't have to complain about that as I have with others recently :P ). Always nice to see a free submitted photo. More may come... --an odd name 00:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(part 2) So far, it looks good: you didn't neglect the business aspects (three-game contract etc.) this time, and what's in the lead is also in the article or infobox. I had replaced Neoseeker with IGN in the Rogue Squadron article; try to do that here as well, or use one of the other sources JimmyBlackwing mentioned. I'll do a fuller check soon or tomorrow. --an odd name 03:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(part 3) I was trying to find replacements for Neoseeker. IGN lists its N64 release date as Dec 14 and apparently reviewed it the next day, but GamePro, GameRankings (GameSpot), Metacritic, and another IGN page(!) all agree on a Dec 18 date. None appear to agree with Neoseeker. I'll change it to the GamePro date. --an odd name 14:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I browsed yesterday, and there was a lot of discrepancy between release dates. The Dec 18th date looks good to me though. I'll do some searching later after work to try to find some reliable sources for the European release dates. --TorsodogTalk 14:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full support I've now read the whole thing, and it has all an FA should. The prose is solid, concise, and original; the plot is not overly long; the cites are correct and consistent; and (thanks also to JimmyBlackwing) it draws correctly from a whole bunch of places for stats and opinions and all that. The sections cover all that they need to and more—I feel like an expert in the game now. :)

I can't verify the "January 8, 2001" publish date for ref 10; tell me where to find it or remove it. That's my last nit to pick, though. Hang the bling—Torsodog's dundiddit again. --an odd name 17:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I can't figure out where i got the 1/8/01 date, BUT it looks like the the real date should be April 18, 2001 according to this link (the page doesn't link to the archived version of the guide, but it is the same guide). And again, thanks for all the copy-editing help! --TorsodogTalk 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I guess I'm done! ...mumble grumble IGN and their inconsistent linking, archiving, and paywalling... --an odd name 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Reception section needs more reviews; IGN and GameSpot are cited over and over again, with barely a mention of other sources. For it to be considered comprehensive, you will need a significantly larger amount of review material. Links to Metacritic and GameRankings don't make up for this lack. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added an Extended Play review after scouring Internet Archive, but unless I find 10-year-old copies of NP or EGM, there isn't much else we can do here. I added as much as I could from GamePro's incredibly brief written review and PC Zone's written review is mostly a joke. I think that 4 cited reviews in the prose for the N64 version and 3 others for the PC version is enough to convey a general consensus of things. --TorsodogTalk 05:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also just added Eurogamer's PC review (they don't have an N64 review).
      • I still don't think it's enough. You can easily locate numerous, far higher quality sources in our Reference library. If you're unfamiliar with the project, I'll fill you in on where you can find the relevant reviews. Here, Pagrashtak states that he has a copy of nearly all Nintendo Power issues, even those not listed. Contact him and see if he has the one you're looking for. Here, Mitaphane lists that he has the Next Generation Magazine review of the game. Twas Now has access to the PC Gamer US review. There are also a couple of print reviews (EGM and Computer Games Magazine) over at the Online print archive. I recommend including these and removing the Eurogamer review, and most references to the IGN and GameSpot reviews. Eurogamer wasn't a particularly high quality source back then, and IGN and GameSpot were not nearly as important as they are now; their opinions circa-2000 don't carry as much weight as the above print sources. However, they were still more reliable than Eurogamer, so you can keep a few references to them, if you want. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll check out what I can get from these resources. Thanks for the help. --TorsodogTalk 21:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The section is looking better now, but it could use the Game Informer review to finish fleshing out the N64 reviews. I'll see if I can find it through Internet Archive; if not, I think you might be able to ask for scans of it at the Reference library. Also, I noticed that User:Mitaphane got back to you with Next Gen's review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • With the addition of NextGen's review, I think the PC paragraph looks great and is probably finished. If you can find the Game Informer review, let me know, but honestly I'm pretty happy with the amount of review sources at the moment! --TorsodogTalk 03:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image copyright review: All OK. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the aspects I usually review.

  • Prose seems good. (Copybook examples of the use of hyphens, actually!) The linking is skillful. A few things I noticed:
    • "The game initially restricts the player to a particular craft for each level; however, after the player has completed a level, he or she can ...". I could see the "he or she" coming a mile off. Will you consider pluralising ("players" and "they"), or using the singular they?
    • "Upon" is a little lah-de-dah nowadays ("on completion"?).
    • Revert Coopwood resizing if you don't like the slightly larger size: the caption looks better that way, and it's a great pic. If we have free use, well, let's use.
    • But it's good that those copyright screenshots are tiny, for different reasons.

My, let's nab you to review game FACs yourself! Tony (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed upon→on. (Also added {{-}} tags to avoid broken layouts in large screen sizes and changed "Couruscant Encounter"→"Coruscant Encounter" because it would be an obvious typo whether in game or just our text.) The game is single-player, so I'll leave the change to "they" to Torsodog. --an odd name 15:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words, Tony! I been trying to get into the FAC review process lately. Maybe I'll take on a video game article as soon as I get a chance. And thanks to Odd Name for fixing up a few things I missed. As for the he/she/they issue, I'm fond of the singular "player", but also not all that crazy about "he or she" or the singular they. Instead I tried writing out the need for any of this all together. Thoughts?
"The game initially restricts the player to a particular craft for each level; however, after a level is completed, it can be replayed with any available craft that falls within its air, land or watercraft specification." --TorsodogTalk 18:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - sources look okay, links not checked with the link checker tool, as it was misbehaving. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the sentence "Like the game's predecessor, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Battle for Naboo is a fast-paced, arcade-style action game." is misleading. It may give the reader the false impression that the game actually belongs in the Rogue Squadron series of games when it merely shares the same engine as the original Rogue Squadron. --Teancum (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about "Like developer Factor 5's prior work, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Battle for Naboo is a fast-paced, arcade-style action game."? It avoids calling it a predecessor but keeps the remaining comparisons. --an odd name 13:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's much better - except I would change "Like developer Factor 5's prior work" to "As with developer Factor 5's prior work" --Teancum (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, I don't know how I feel about this change. The relationship between the two games is much more than simply games made by the same developer. Battle for Naboo's prequel setting obviously made a Rogue Squadron appearance impossible, but the game is still essentially a direct sequel to Rogue Squadron, and most reviewers viewed it as such. The engines are almost the same, the gameplay is almost exactly the same and the fictional universe is the same. It is a textbook example of a "spiritual sequel", which, IMO, makes "Rogue Squadron-predecessor" a valid descriptor of the game. --TorsodogTalk 21:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spiritual Sequel is fine as far as wording, but I don't think there's such a term as a "spiritual predecessor", which is how you would describe Rogue Squadron. A true sequel follows the story or characters, and this follows neither. As far as what it gets reworded to - I'm not particular on that. But though it shares gameplay and the engine it isn't an actual game in the series. I guess my point is that saying RS is its predecessor lumps it directly into the series. It just needs rewording to differentiate it from the actual series, yet show the reader it uses the RS engine and gameplay. --Teancum (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • GamePro and IGN use terms such as "descendant" and "follow-up", respectively, to describe Battle for Naboo's relationship to Rogue Squadron. Would you be ok with trying to work one of these terms into the sentence instead? --TorsodogTalk 01:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up fits the best I think, as it's more ambiguous, which is actually a good thing here - the reader doesn't automatically lump it in with the Rogue Squadron series, but realizes there may be a relationship there. (If they keep reading they learn more about that relationship). --Teancum (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried out a new configuration. If you could, take a look and let me know what you think! --TorsodogTalk 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks much better, but the "semi-sequel" sentence is rather awkward. I simplified it to "Many reviews compared Battle for Naboo to Star Wars: Rogue Squadron", which does the same thing. --12:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I can get behind this. Looks good now. Thanks for working with me on this. --TorsodogTalk 13:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments and concerns? It looks ready from here. --an odd name 05:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Full Support -- I think the article's ready now. --Teancum (talk) 16:58, 29 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Star_Wars:_Episode_I:_Battle_for_Naboo/archive1&oldid=1136095433"