Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metroid Prime 2: Echoes

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), Igordebraga

• Featured article candidates/Metroid Prime 2: Echoes

After working on this article for over a month, I believe it's ready. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I thought that the reception section skimped on criticism on the multiplayer, which was prominently mentioned in the lead. If the criticism wasn't all too common, then I think it would be better off if you dropped that. bibliomaniac15 04:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  It was mentioned by two reviews in the Reception section; I think it's suitable in the lead, especially considering it was one of the few things that received criticism. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• Some comments, since I played this game.
  • I'm a bit of a nerd when it comes to opening sentences, but I think the first sentence is rather boring, and doesn't say that much. I would love if the second sentence (the general content) was used instead for the opening, since it sums up what the game is so well. The current first sentence would be a logical second sentence then, since it explains in more general terms of what it is. I don't know if everyone would agree, but on tropical cyclone articles, which I so often work on, I try and find a captivating opening sentence, with a more general sentence that follows.
  • Is the mentioning of the Zelda game important? I find it out of place, especially it being in the first paragraph, which is supposed to talk about the game itself. If it were on TFA, and the whole lede were included, I'd certainly be confused why there was a Zelda reference in its main page blurb.
    • Removed.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede could use some tweaking. Perhaps a semicolon is needed to split the "will be released" part.
    • Edited to replicate another FA with receive same treatment.
  • Likewise, I have some issues with the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lede. First, should Temple be capitalized? Second, you say Samus must travel to the temples, but you don't say why. Isn't that important? Third, perhaps the bit about the Space Pirates and Dark Samus should be a separate statement, since IIRC those battles were separate from the Ing/Luminoth battle.
    • Fixed a little. But the Space Pirates/DS is to show that the Ing aren't the only problem.
  • A source is needed for "The events of Echoes take place six months after the events of Metroid Prime."
    • Didn't find, reworded.
  • Something I notice that's missing is total number of units sold (not just in 2004, but overall since released). That is important, I would imagine.
    • I couldn't find newer data outside of forums (it says it's NPD numbers, but people normally complain when this kind of source is used...).
  • Should its place in chronology in the MP trilogy be mentioned in the lede? Just an idea...
    • Don't know, but decided not to put.
  • For the image in gameplay, should it be "heads-up display" or "head-up display"? The former redirects to the latter.
    • Fixed.
      • The wording "heads-up display" is still in the gameplay section.
        • Done Gary King (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of "setting" is a bit too much of a run-on; its format is "a is on b, which home c, which is doing d, which is e."
    • Did something, tell me if it needs more work.
      • Better.
  • Wasn't there something about Dark Samus originating from the end boss in the first Metroid Prime? Should that be mentioned?
    • I put it as a note. igordebraga ≠ 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• That's it for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Two more concerns. First, in the setting section, I really don't like the wording of "One day" in regards to the meteor strike. Since the source you have for that sentence says "five decades ago", and MP3 was 6 months after MP2, then couldn't you logically say "About five decades prior" or something, instead of the vague "one day." The other concern is larger, in that the entire synopsis section is without a source, which I find that problematic. Is there a reason for that, other than that we are to assume the game is the source? Shouldn't the article rely on secondary sources? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Done the first. The second, sources are nice but not a requirement. Gary King (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Could you point me to the discussion that sources are not a requirement? The way you said that freaks me out a tad, per FA crit. 1c -
        • Factually accurate : claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate
      • Sorry, but thinking about it further, I oppose based on that. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
        • I've never had a problem with the synopsis of any previous FAs. How can certain things be sourced when there isn't always a quote available? Gary King (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Consider it unactionable, but I can't support something that large that is unsourced. I was told that the game was considered an "acceptable primary source"; that alone is murky in my book, as I thought we were supposed to rely on a combination of primary and secondary sources. I cannot believe that there is no available source from some agency (Nintendo would be the best bet) that does not have a plot outline. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Image review

• Image concerns addressed. Awadewit (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Image:Echoesboxart (Large).jpg - Please add the name of the copyright holder to the fair use rationale. Awadewit (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

  I added it to Source. Gary King (talk) 19:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - man, you really don't waste time with closing them Peer Reviews, eh? Looks close, but there are some issues with the prose that need to be addressed:

• Lead:
  • "Metroid Prime 2: Echoes is a first-person action-adventure video game developed by Retro Studios and published by Nintendo for the GameCube video game console. It is the second game in the Metroid Prime trilogy, following Metroid Prime, and the first Metroid game to have a multiplayer feature." I dunno, personally I happen to dislike the whole wall of blue greeting people as they start reading. Is the "first person" part that important? Is telling us it follows Metroid Prime that important either?
    • The "first-person" is to denote it is like an FPS, but with less focus on shooting. I reworded to denote it's a direct sequel to Metroid Prime, so very similar to it.
  • "Echoes follows a theme of light versus dark, similar to another game published by Nintendo, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, whose development team advised Retro Studios on the concept's development. " This sentence doesn't tell me much, disassociated as it is with the other story elements, and "to another game" bit just sounds vague and bizarre as phrased.
  • "The game was released in North America, Europe, and Australia in 2004, and in Japan in 2005, and will be released for the Wii in 2009 with updated graphics and take advantage of the Wii controls as part of the Play on the Wii selection." or, put a period after 2005. And create a new sentence.
  • "Nintendo launched a viral marketing campaign to promote the game that included several websites written in an in-universe style. Echoes was well received by most critics, and received comments focusing on its campaign and graphics, which was considered one of the best on the GameCube. However, the game received complaints regarding its steep difficulty level and the average quality of the multiplayer component. " 'included several websites written in an in-universe style' - ehhhhh. Not grabbing me. "and received comments focusing on its campaign and graphics" - comments?
    • Yeah, Gary King is a man who rushes. The first, tried to do something; the second I had already removed, and third, changed following the previous commenter; the fourth, removed the former (no need to summarize everything in the lead) and reworded the latter. The igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
      • What? Gary King (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
        • 00:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC): Article passes the GA. 04:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC): The FAC is started. Simple. But he's a great editor nevertheless. igordebraga ≠ 22:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
          • The amount of time between an article being promoted after GAN and its nomination to FAC isn't directly related to how well written it is. I'm fine if you call me a poor writer, but please don't assume bad faith and think that I tend to rush nominations. Gary King (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Gameplay:
  • "The gameplay revolves around solving puzzles to uncover secrets, platform jumping, and shooting enemies with the help of a "lock-on" mechanism that allows circle strafing while staying aimed at an enemy." This is rather breathless with the lock-on bit. Try ending at enemies and starting a new sentence explaining the lock on mechanism.
  • "The game contains additions that include new power-ups for Samus, including the Screw Attack, which allows Samus to jump in midair and off of certain surfaces; and new beam weapons, which, unlike in previous games, have limited ammunition.[2][3]" Two guesses on what the two issues are with this sentence.
  • "The safe zones are either permanent or need to be activated. " How does one activate them?
  • "The game's heads-up display simulates the inside of Samus' helmet and features a radar, map, missile ammunition meter, health meter, and health bar" It's not quite clear you are referring to Samus' health, et al in this section.
  • "The multiplayer mode allows up to four players to engage in combat using a split screen. It has six arenas and two modes: Deathmatch and Bounty, the latter of which focuses on collecting coins that injured characters drop. Multiplayer in Echoes features the same control scheme as the single-player mode and includes the lock-on system.[2]" - don't go all "the multiplayer mode" on me when we haven't talked about it before. Explain the gametypes if you're going to talk about one of them.
    • 1st: considering I link to the previous game gameplay, reworded. Tried to fix the rest. igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
• Synopsis:
  • "Echoes takes place on Aether, a planet inhabited by the Luminoth, a race that protects the planet's pure natural energy, the Light of Aether." repetitious structure
    • Added some words.
  • "One day, a meteor collides into the planet and leaves a scar that burns the Agon Plains, floods Torvus Forest, " - um, who gives a crap about Torvus forest and agon plains? It seems like by cutting out these details, the plot could be slimmed down.
    • It's just for readers not to be much lost when "Agon Wastes" and "Torvus Bog" appear in "Story"... but removed the names. igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • "Named Dark Aether, it forms evil creatures to balance the Luminoth, called the Ing: cruel shapeshifting creatures that can possess bodies of the living, the dead, and the artificially intelligent, and who intend to destroy the Luminoth." awkward start with an unclear subject; tacked-on sentence about the Ing, repetitious structure
    • Reworded.
  • "Failing to return the Marines back alive" - gah.
    • Removed
  • To me, it seems the entire second paragraph of plot could be turned into "Samus travels to different locations across Aether, defeating powerful bosses and restoring light yadda yadda."
    • Reduced it a bit.
  • "If the player has collected 100% of the in-game items, a post-credits scene shows Dark Samus reforming herself." This comes out of nowhere, and since it's not discussed previously doesn't make much sense. Recast to be less game-centered.
    • Added some words, but I can remove.
• Development:
  • "Nintendo ordered Retro Studios" order eh? Who does he think he is?
    • The full owner? But reworded.
  • "After the successful release of Metroid Prime" How was it successful?
    • Reworded
  • "They also created a more immersive storyline that focused less on the Space Pirates and Metroids." who are the developers to decide their succeeded in creating an immersive storyline. I'd likes some qualifier to that. Also, something should explain why focusing less on the Space Pirates and Metroids was a departure.
  • "because the game also used a light and dark concept" oh come on, you can explain it, "the game's protagonist travels between light and dark worlds yadda yadda"
    • Reworded the rest.
  • "The "Hunters" multiplayer theme is a remix of Super Metroid's "Upper Brinstar" theme" perhaps you should preface these examples by explaining they adapted music from previous Metroid games?
    • Expanded.
• Release:
  • The I Love Bees bit should be explained out (that it was viral marketing/ARG for Halo 2)
    • Done.
  • "Despite positive reviews, some critics found problems with the game" The positive reviews part is a given considering previous text, just axe it.
    • Done.
  • the constant use of "complained " sounds a bit POV
  • "and 40,000 copies in Japan after its release there" 40,000 copies during the same time frame? it's not clear in the prose
  • "It was also rated"
    • All reworded
  • keep the same citation scheme: in "the 15th best GameCube game by IGN, and the 13th best by GameSpy.[30][31]" the IGN ref should come after the award is named.
    • I had already fixed before your post. Did you review a previous version somehow? igordebraga ≠ 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please reply to the above in a block below so I can keep track of what's being done and all. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've performed a series of copyedits fixing my concerns outlined above, but I'm concerned about the length of the reception section. There are only three reviews by my count for positive reviews, for example; I'll see about gathering up some MSM sources from LexisNexis. -Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright I'll get right on it. Frankly, Development is the hardest to expand, so Reception shouldn't be that bad. I'll fish around. Gary King (talk) 00:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Check your email, I've sent a half-dozen plus bits. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added three more positive reviews. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It's shaping up. I only have two things left, really: 1), why is the game citation segregated from the rest of the refs, and 2) the reception prose is clunky. There's too much "Publication X's Reviewer Y" and lots of similar phrasing and word choice, such as "enjoyed". Perhaps lumping together similar statements would help improve flow (Publication X's Reviewer Y and Publication Z's Review Ω pointed out the graphics and ≈ as postive aspects of the game." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
• What makes http://www.japan-gamecharts.com/gc.php a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you replace the questioned source? If so, with what? Ealdgyth - Talk 14:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't replace it. It was originally a Famitsu source; someone else added the URL to it to use as an online mirror for the information. I just removed the URL. Gary King (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)