Nominator(s): JDC808 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because the article had a Peer Review, and recently passed the GAN process. I would now like to take it through the FAC process and hopefully pass. JDC808 (talk) 05:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Question: as regards the fair use of File:GOW2_PAL_backpage_CoO_teaser.jpg, could you explain how this imparts any more information to the reader than the text in the article In February 2007, Ready At Dawn posted a teaser for an upcoming handheld God of War title, featuring "PSP" in the Omega symbol with the words "Coming Soon" in the God of War font. also I'm not quite clear on whether An editor from 1UP also obtained an early copy of God of War II and posted the game's instruction manual, featuring a one-page teaser with "Coming 2007". refers to the same teaser (if they're different and the latter, then my first question should be directed at the appropriate one). The FUR for File:God of War PSP Bundle.jpg is also severely deficient, including "Replaceable: yes" which would if true disqualify the rationale. I think on balance that image is more defensible but it does need to be threshed out. Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 10:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
To be perfectly honest, I didn't really want the image there as I didn't find it necessary, but a couple editors argued it was necessary. I would be fine with removing that image. The 1UP is not the same teaser as the image depicts. Will fix the rationale for the "PSP bundle" image. JDC808 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
No further comments, the updated rationale is sufficient/better (could be further improved). Grandiose(me, talk, contribs) 11:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Source review - spotchecks not done
Don't use all-caps
Some titles use hyphens where they should use endashes
Don't italicize page numbers
Publication dates shouldn't use YYYY-MM-DD
Okay, what format should they use? Does that include the accessdate format? And by publications, do you mean printed work, online work, or all the above?
Printed and online works - date of publication should be formatted the same as dates in the article text. Access and archive dates can use the hyphenated format, or the same as the publication dates at your discretion (per WP:MOSDATE). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. I think.
FN16, 18: accessdate?
FN24: quote formatting
I removed the quote as I didn't find it necessary.
Okay, on Allgame's page, it said All Media Guide (with Rovi in parenthesis) which is why I put them. As for italics, it automatically italicized it.
I don't see the name God of War: Chains of Olympus – Original Soundtrack from the Video Game mentioned in that Allgame source. Maybe you could rewrite it to just say Marino composed the music. —Torchiesttalkedits 12:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The reason it has that name is because all other games in the series have used that title where it's "(name of game): Original Soundtrack from the Video Game" (but they were actually released). This can be changed if necessary. JDC808 (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey Torchiest, for date formatting, see my comment above: you're allowed to use different format for publication vs access/archive date. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about first comment; I was unaware they could be different for access dates. As for the music, I'd say change it, since it can always be changed to the Original Soundtrack name again if and when it's actually released. Otherwise, it's borderline WP:OR to assume that's the name.
Changed to "The soundtrack of God of War: Chains of Olympus was composed by...."
I'll have some more comments, but here are some items from the gameplay section for now:
"A third-person, single-player, fixed camera game, the player controls the character Kratos in a combination of combat, both normal and quick-time, with platforming and puzzle game elements." That sentence has some grammar problems. It sounds like the player is the game, because they're set up appositionally to each other.
Okay. I've reworded it. Is there any better way this could be worded?
The part about the quick time events seems both too detailed and not detailed enough. I think part of the problem is that it's not clear what is happening, especially for someone who has no idea what "a quick-time feature" is. I'd break the first sentence off like so: "Combat includes a quick-time feature, which is initiated when the player has weakened a stronger foe." Then rewrite the next couple sentences, perhaps stealing some from the main quick time event article, which I see you've already linked earlier in the text.
Okay. I've delinked the first quick time, and relinked it where it's described. I've reworded stealing from the QTE page.
"Health and Magic increases—Gorgon Eyes and Phoenix Feathers respectively" is a little confusing. Maybe rewrite to say "items that increase the maximum amount of health and magic" or something along those lines.
I've done a few copy edits here and there, but in the development section:
Make sure you have commas after the dates.
There's no explanation of what UMD means.
After the first time "UMD" is used, I put "the optical disc medium for the PSP."
The Ready at Dawn stuff needs some minor fixes. I'd say explain that Ready at Dawn is the developer. Also, "at" is being inconsistently capitalized.
I put "Game developer Ready at Dawn..." in the very first paragraph. I'm not sure if there needs to be more clarification. Decapitalized the "at's".
I'm wondering if you need to note the people who had previously done voices in other GoW games, especially if they aren't notable enough to have their own articles.
I thought it would be a nice tidbit to know. It can be removed if need be.
In the reception section, it seems like the reviews aren't balanced properly. For a game that "gained universal critical acclaim from reviewers", splitting the positive and negative quotes 50/50 seems off. I'd think you should add another paragraph worth of positive commentary in between the two you have right now.
Okay, I'll search for some more reviews to make another positive paragraph. JDC808 (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate links removed. JDC808 (talk) 20:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Comments Some initial comments:
Quote "universal acclaim" in the reception section as it's Metacritic's expression and otherwise looks like puffery. Ditto with "Chains of Olympus achieved the highest composite score for a PlayStation Portable title" in the lead: is this something to do with the charts or just from Metacritic? Needs clarified/attributed either way. bridies (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Quoted "universal critical acclaim" and noted that "highest composite score" with Metacritic and GameRankings.
The reception section looks to be really rather short for a recent, highly acclaimed game. I generally baulk at an article in which the plot and/or gameplay sections are at least as long as the reception section, which looks to be the case here. The fact that it's largely a succession of brief quotes from different sources gives it a knocked-together feel and it seems to lack thematic coherence other than a very basic positive-then-negative structure. Suggest more adding more detail and seeing if it can't perhaps be arranged by something like graphics, gameplay, controls, difficulty, etc. bridies (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Will work on as it's a bit late for me right now.
Some copy editing needed. A lot of passive voice in the gameplay section where there seems to be no need for it; the whole article has this issue to a lesser extent. The reception section doesn't read all that well as I mentioned. Prose is pretty good otherwise. bridies (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Torchiest has been doing some copy-editing. Could you quote some of the passive voice in the Gameplay so I could find it easier? JDC808 (talk) 07:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘In just the gameplay section alone, methinks:
it is presented
Wasn't sure what to do with this one, so I put "it features".
(weapons are) acquired throughout the game
reworded sentence some. It now reads "with Kratos acquiring additional weapons,...., throughout the game."
Magic is also used
Changed to "Kratos utilizes magic, with new abilities..."
all of which are obtained
I just removed this.
"The player obtains" whatever it was. Nevermind. bridies (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
which is initiated
Wasn't sure with this one either. Made it "that's initiated..."
"Combat/the game initiates the quick time event feature when the player has weakened a stronger foe". That said IMO the passive reads well enough here, but it should now be "that is", not "that's". bridies (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
orbs can be found
Reworded sentence as "...,Kratos finds chests containing orbs during the game."
Each chest is marked
Reworded as "Chests are marked..."
Still passive. Should say, "corresponding colors mark each chest"; although this is another where I wouldn't argue strongly against the passive. bridies (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
and can be found in plain, non-colored chests.
Reworded to "are found in plain...."
Active would be something like: "The player finds the feathers in plain chests". If you want to say that the feathers return maybe you need the passive. But right after that there's another passive example in saying the feathers "are required". bridies (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
We want to say return. The next part, reworded to "The player must find five Eyes or Feathers to increase each meter's maximum."
Red orbs may also be collected
Reworded to "Red orbs are also collected..."
Still passive, active would be something like: "The player collects red orbs..." This is right after the "are required" example noted above. bridies (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Put your wording in except I put the word "also" in between "player" and "collects". I've also moved this sentence to before the "Gorgon Eyes and Phoenix Feathers" sentence.
art galleries may be unlocked as a reward.
Reworded to "are unlocked..."
"The player may unlock art galleries" or "The game may unlock art galleries as a reward". bridies (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That sentence now reads "The player may unlock bonus costumes, behind-the-scenes videos, and art galleries as rewards."
Just feels a bit... passive. bridies (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The above gameplay section should now all be fixed; will look over over everything again when more general copy editing and expansion is finished. bridies (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the box art image should be shrunk down to 300px on its longest side. It's currently too big for fair use.
The image of the battle with the basilisk might need to have more discussion in the text. Moving down to the story section may be better. Alternately, a screen shot showing more specific game activities that are already discussed in the gameplay section could be a better option.
More discussion added.
I'll try to find another image, perhaps one that shows more than just the basilisk's head. I've also moved it to Story. --JDC808 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the image of the GoW II instruction manual should be in the article. It really doesn't add anything to the reader's understanding, and fails fair use.
I agree. Removed.
Likewise, I don't think the image of the bundle should be in the article. It's mostly redundant with the main box art, and it's not necessary to understand what is in the bundle.
I think maybe an image of just the PSP itself should be kept as it is unique.
So, it might be possible to add one more gameplay screen shot and move the basilisk shot down some, which would leave you with three images. Perhaps someone else can comment on this. —Torchiesttalkedits 13:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with getting rid of the bundle image as unnecessary. bridies (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed. --JDC808 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Something else: you have a lot of in-game terminology and items inside quotation marks, which I don't think you need to do. It's inconsistently used anyway, with stuff like Phoenix Feathers not in quotation marks. I'd say get rid of them all. —Torchiesttalkedits 12:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Quotations removed. --JDC808 (talk) 04:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I was not the original contributor of that info so I assumed the original contributor put the correct info. Fixed. --JDC808 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The Metacritic source (40) says it was the PSP Game of the Year for 2008, but that's not mentioned in the reception. Seems worthwhile to me. That same source says "universal acclaim", not "universal critical acclaim". That quote needs to be fixed.
I was also not the original contributor of that source so I didn't know about that (or why the original contributor didn't mention it). Fixed quote. --JDC808 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The Allgame source (15) doesn't seem to back up the claim it follows: "The Dream God Morpheus is mentioned but does not appear." Can you fix that, or explain how the reference supports that sentence?
Allgame is just the credits so it doesn't list non-speaking roles. Fixed. --JDC808 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is the Spike source (26) supposed to support the first four sentences in the paragraph talking about the demo?
I assume so. I again wasn't the original contributor of that info and source, but I remember I had to add this source because the original GameTrailers source took down this post so I searched Google and I found the Spike source that featured the GameTrailers video. --JDC808 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I found one source that looks pretty problematic. Although it is on the IGN site, the walkthrough (5) is a wiki, which means anyone can edit it, and there's no way it can be considered reliable, since it could change at any time. That will require some resourcing for about half a dozen spots. —Torchiesttalkedits 04:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Replaced. --JDC808 (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The reception section is quite poorly written. There is no logic to how that section flows, it reads like a scanned list of review snippets off Metacritic. In the first paragraph, you talk about the lack of second analog stick, yet you do so again in the second paragraph. So why are they different paragraphs? You should rewrite and structure this section so that it flows. Don't focus on stringing reviews one after the other, but focus on the game. For example, spend the first paragraph talking about the graphics/sound and general presentation. Then go into a paragraph detailing gameplay/controls/AI. And then finish with a conclusion. Each paragraph can contain both positive and negatives, just make sure it gives a rounded view of the entirety of the game, which the current version does not with it's disjuncted "A said this, then B said that" approach.
Also, if you're quoting a review in the prose, and that review includes a score - include that score in the reviews box. You've skipped out CheatCodeCentral and Modojo, but then again, I would question the use of those two sources at all. They may be reliable, but they clearly aren't as influential or popular as some of the other review sites - so why pick their voice? I generally think it's good to have a review from the "official" magazine (such as official Playstation magazine), they're meant to be independent but tend to toe the company line. Edge magazine is a source worth looking out for too, given its status as "industry" magazine. I also personally think it's redundant to include GameRankings when you've already covered Metacritic, but others disagree. - hahnchen 20:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I've worked on the format of how the Reception is organized. I hadn't had much time to try and work on this section the past week. I chose Cheat Code Central and Modojo because I was looking for more reviews to use on the page from Metacritic's website and Metacritic posted a link to both of those reviews. It did not, however, post a link to the reviews from any of the OPM's (it just gave their score and one sentence from their review praising the game). --JDC808 (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
OK, you moved what you had about so its a bit better, but I note the content is pretty much the same. You should describe why there were concerns in the first place about the second analog stick, some readers may not be familiar with the loss of that from PS2 to PSP. Okay. There are some sentences just stuck in there with no real context, how does this line "Kristan Reed of EuroGamer criticized Ready At Dawn for cutting co-op play, multiplayer, some puzzles, dialogue, and characters." relate to the rest of the article? There's a spot in the development section where it states that Ready at Dawn cut these features. Why is the first mention of possible co-op right at the end of the reception section - yet this had never been part of the GoW series? More or less the same as last answer. The finishing line, "GameTrailers praised the replay value for being able to 'bring your powered-up methods of destruction with you.'" - just feels tacked on. It can be removed. It was just something else that was praised.
I suggest working with a copy editor. I think there are issues in the previous sections too, the first paragraph of the development section does not flow at all. - hahnchen 16:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I've messaged a copy-editor, hopefully they can help out. I've also left response in bold in your second paragraph. --JDC808♫ 06:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.