Talk:Geist (video game)
|Geist (video game) was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|WikiProject Video games||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
Can someone find some sources for the criticisms? --Thaddius 01:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this is much of a stub anymore. If no-one objects I'll remove it from the stub list. --Thaddius 12:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
This article is a stub and needs references. It is not even close to Good Article status. --GoOdCoNtEnT 07:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Failed GA nomination
This article failed its good article nomination. This is how the article compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: The article has a good intro, but other sections need expansion or cleanup. It is always best to limit the size of the trivia section and attempt to incorporate it into other sections. I would recommend working on improving statements such as "The multiplayer section of the game is rather well thought out" and "Unfortunately, this mode is usually stacked against the humans."
- 2. Factually accurate?: There are no references, so nothing can be verified to be accurate. Outside sources should be used and properly cited for reviews and other information, not just a link. Much of the gameplay doesn't have to be cited (description of characters, plot, etc.) but if you can find outside sources with some information about these sections, it helps to make the article more verifiable.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: The article is not very broad, it would be better for the article if there could be information about the video game's production, sales, other system releases (if any), any awards the game has received, etc.
- 4. Neutral point of view?: The article appears to have a NPOV, but it would be best to include more wikilinks to explain the game's characteristics. Attempt to keep the article readable so that somebody that knows nothing about the game can easily follow along while reading.
- 5. Article stability? The article appears stable and I don't foresee there being any problems with that in the future.
- 6. Images?: The current images are okay, but they all need fair use rationales. Look to similar video games for fair use rationales or look to already promoted GA articles.
The article will be more likely to pass as a GA in the future with these suggestions being met. Keep up the good work, the article has a good stat. Just begin adding references and further expanding the article before nominating it again. If you have any questions let me know, and I'll try to get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 06:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess the Runaway: A Road Adventure article will have to wait a bit more for its improvements. ^^ I'll see what I can do to improve the article. I have a few questions though:
I have wanted to improve the reception part (and add some sales info too) and maybe a tad more about the development. I think a development section could be made, but the other two are a problem. Now, this is not your problem, but if you could give me some help, I'd appreciate it. I am a dutchie, and thus I don't often read the world's "big magazines", so I don't know anything about their reviews and possible articles (and I doubt anyone cares about the dutch magazines :)), Unfortunately, their quotes and reviews would make a very good addition. Any idea how I can get that info? Also, where can one find sales charts? All I could find about Geist is that during the first month's release (in the USA only), it sold a little over 10.000 (ouch), but nothing further. And the source wasn't that great either.
What exactly are "fair use rationales"? The first time I uploaded a picture was a few days ago, and I don't really know how everything works yet. DreamingLady 13:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I can't answer your first questions, but fair use rationale is information that is included with images that are not taken by an editor and are copyrighted. They include movie posters, DVD/CD covers, video game/film/television screenshots, among others. Since they are the rightful property of their creator we can not simply add what ever images we find of of google or other source to the article (however if you upload an image you took of something, you are the copyrighter and can choose the license you want). According to fair use policy, copyrighted images are allowed for educational purposes, news reporting, and criticism of the object in question. So since we want to use the images for educational purposes since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we have to include reasons we believe using the image is for educational purposes. This is a fair use rationale. A few examples can be found at these images: Image:Ff9 screenshot bossbattle.png, Image:MGS screen psx.jpg, and Image:Borat movie.png. You can look for more examples just by looking at the GA/FA articles that have already been passed. Let me know if that clarifies your question. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nehrams2020 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
NOTE: You might want to submit this for peer review, it'll be better suited. On this page, I will only address those things that made me give this a B rating, instead of an A. Overall, this article has too much information which is only interesting to fans, and is better suited to a fan wiki or site.
- The introduction is out of the book. Well done.
- Characters is way too long. Keep 3 characters, and delete some of their content.
- Gameplay is ok, maybe a tad too long, but I like it. Only one reference for a large section.
- Multiplayer is too long and doesn't contain enough relevant information - the game types are only a small part of multiplayer, yet take up three quarters of the section. Don't list them like this, too. No references as well. I can't emphasize this point enough - references are an essential part of meeting GA/A/FA criteria.
- Delete over half of the enemies section. Move 'other', 'vehicles', and 'virtual' to a short sentence in the introduction, because they don't warrant their own section (stub sections at the moment). Much of the information in humans (weapons, characters, just briefly mention the 'Spirit Hunters') can be deleted because it's simply not notable and only makes the article unnecessarily long. I would strongly suggest to take a look at Halo: Combat Evolved for a good way to structure an article about a (FPS) game.
- I couldn't spot major flaws in any of the other sections.
- The references are thin - only a few different sites.
Thank you for any part of the post that contained a compliment and the tips for improvement. However, I don't know if it's fair to compare this page to the Halo: Combat Evolved article. I was thinking of adding more references already (story mainly, but gameplay as well), so I will definetely work on it now. As for some sections being able to be shorter: I hope I can find a proper way to do that. On the other hand, let's compare Halo and Geist qua character section. Halo has a way bigger character section than Geist, both for each individual character and for the number of characters (in %) in general. However, that article cheats itself out by having a seperate character page. I cannot make a Geist character page, because the game is too "unimportant" and such a page is doomed to be deleted. I already tried to mention the characters' role in the big story (the parts I already mentioned in the story section) as little as possible, which is more than can be said about the Halo character page. At the moment, I don't understand why a less popular game has less need for a proper character section, but if you can explain, please do. The same goes for the enemy section, even though I think I can work on that. But come on!, Halo also has TWO seperate enemy pages (Covenant (Halo) & Flood (Halo)) with way more detailed descriptions. The main article only has to bother about having a proper link. DreamingLady 07:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This article has finally met GA standards! I think it is even at FA standards! The only thing that might have ANY chance of getting this article out of FA would be part 1C of the FA Criteria. Just check the citations in this article. Peer Review is HIGHLY reccomended before FA nomination. Funpika 00:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Meaning of "Geist"
can someone help out here, there is a major leak about Geist 2 being confirmed. It's most likely to be true but here is the main summary. http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=26417107 click []. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- I myself am looking forward to Geist 2. The screenshot you posted was interested (though the forum post looks like a joke topic). As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we should wait until a more official announcement before we go ahead and include everything. —C. Raleigh (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)