From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Dishonored is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 11, 2016.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 24, 2011 Articles for deletion Kept
January 23, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
March 28, 2014 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article
WikiProject Video games (Rated FA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Critical Acclaim"[edit]

In response to User talk:ferret#No critical acclaim for Dishonored.. I believe a little more thought may be needed here. Typically I prefer to err on the side of caution and stick with a fairly neutral and (should be) uncontroversal "positive reviews". A lot of articles see drive by editors who change "positive" to "universal/critical acclaim". But usually those cases do not pass 90/100 on Metacritic.

In this case, Dishonored does pass the 90/100 mark though, for a single platform. How do we accurately represent this? One version is higher than the others and they straddle the boundary. -- ferret (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

This discussion really needs to be moved to the game project because we need a benchmark for this once and for all since everyone likes to to think their favourite game is critically acclaimed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:11, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I do think "positive reviews" should be changed. I understand that these standards have not (yet) been set, but it doesn't quite feel accurate in its current form. Nwillard (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I´m fairly new to wikipedia in the less public sections, so if I make some mistakes in communicating with other forum-members correctly in regards to proper editing etc., I´d like to apologize in advance. Thank you. Concerning the topic: While I wouldn´t have any sort of problem with the term "positive reviews" at all, the thing that irks me is that seemingly not all pages would hold up the same high level of quality as the Dishonored-article, leading to the game being connoted as a bit worse than the reviews actually suggest. So "Positive reviews" would be a fine term, but what of the other wikipedia-pages then that would still use the "universal/critical acclaim" catchphrase and thus profit from less accurate editing?

One article I could think of, even though that one IS actually about my favourite game (and not Dishonored, as it may come across), is the Deus Ex: Human Revolution article. Here the "critical acclaim" is listed in both the reception-section and the introduction-section, even though the ratings are slightly worse than Dishonored´s and the "critical acclaim" could also only be applied to the two PC-versions, whereas the console-versions suggest "generally favourable" reviews.

So I agree with you both that this discussion should maybe be discussed a bit more in regards to having a real benchmark for such things since it blurs the reception-section of the articles to some extent. Autorefiller, 17.01.2016, 11:17

Alright, in that case, the proper venue is going to likely be WT:VG. If everyone is happy with Dishonored's state, and the real question is consistency across articles, it should be discussed there. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)