Nominator(s): JDC808♫ 04:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This article is about the 2010 video game, God of War III. I am nominating this for featured article again because I believe it is ready to become an FA. --JDC808♫ 04:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: JDC808. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Support: As per what I said in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/God_of_War_III/archive2, since I have not noted any huge changes. Only one minor point: I might rephrase the piece for the QTE screenshot, just referring to Hercules as a boss rather than by his name. It makes the screenshot seem too involved in the narrative for where it is in the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Instead of removing his name, I added "boss character" before it. I'd like to keep his name because I'm sure people who haven't played this would be interested in knowing what he looks like. --JDC808♫ 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I just checked ref 4 and it was fine. --JDC808♫ 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I figured it out now. Checker There are refs on obsolete parameters in the infobox which screws up the ref numbering in the article causing problems for the checker. The link in the checker is indeed dead. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 02:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I was just recently able to get around to see the Checker and have replaced the dead link. --JDC808♫ 21:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Add deadurl=no for archived links that are alive.
Obsolete parameters in infobox
Missed those. Done. --JDC808♫ 00:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Italicize God of War in the ref titles.
Re:Italicize God of War in the ref titles. Is this a standard? I've never come across this before. --JDC808♫ 21:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Consider it similar to why ref dates must match the article's styling. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 00:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Support Even though I believe the gameplay section is over detailed, the article satisfies FA criteria for comprehension and references. DragonZero (Talk·Contribs) 04:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll read over the gameplay section a couple times to see if I can trim it back some. --JDC808♫ 06:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Support; After a few minutes with the article, I don't have any complaints. (It's no secret that I'm a fan of citations for plot sections, but that's far from official policy.) Well-written and complete. Good job. Tezero (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. If I can find citations that can be used for plot sections, I'll use them, otherwise it's kinda hard to find them unless you cite the game itself. --JDC808♫ 18:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Citing the game, period, would be a little ridiculous. I cite specific quotes from the game. Tezero (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
That's what I do if I use the game as a source. --JDC808♫ 07:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Support: JDC808, the article is fantastic! I have the following suggestions I think will be useful in improving the article.
WP:LEAD I think the lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis for the Development and the Release. Can these points be expanded a bit in the lead?
Major Point 1: Gameplay "The gameplay is similar to the previous installments, and focuses on combo-based combat, achieved through the player's main weapon—the Blades of Exile—and secondary weapons acquired throughout the game. It features quick time events that require the player to complete various game controller actions in a timed sequence to defeat stronger enemies and bosses. The player can use up to four magical attacks and a power-enhancing ability as alternative combat options. The game also features puzzles and platforming elements. In addition to its similar gameplay, it features a revamped magic system, an increase in the number of onscreen enemies, further interaction with the environment, new camera angles, and downloadable content." (summarised well in the lead)
Major Point 2: Synopsis "Loosely based on Greek mythology, the game is set in ancient Greece with vengeance as its central motif. The player controls the protagonist, Kratos, the former God of War, after his betrayal by his father Zeus, the King of the Olympian Gods. Reigniting the Great War, Kratos ascends Mount Olympus with his initial allies, the Titans, until he is abandoned by Gaia. Now guided by the spirit of Athena to search for the Flame of Olympus, Kratos battles monsters, gods, and Titans in a search for Pandora, the key to pacifying the flame surrounding Pandora's Box, and to defeat Zeus. Successful, Kratos kills Zeus and ends the reign of the Olympian Gods." (summarised well in the lead)
Major Point 3: Development "First released for the PlayStation 3 (PS3) console on March 16, 2010, the game is the fifth installment in the God of War series, the seventh and final chronologically, and the sequel to God of War and God of War II." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
Major Point 4: Release "The best-selling game in the God of War series, it sold nearly 5.2 million copies worldwide by June 2012, and it was included in the God of War Saga that was released on August 28, 2012, also for the PlayStation 3." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
Major Point 5: Reception "A critical and commercial success, PSM3 magazine claimed that God of War III is "simply one of the best games of all time." IGN asserted that it defines the word "scale" with reference to video games. The game has been highly praised for its graphics, particularly Kratos, with IGN claiming the character "is perhaps the single most impressive-looking character ever in video games." It received several awards, including "Most Anticipated Game of 2010" and "Best PS3 Game" at the 2009 and 2010 Spike Video Game Awards, respectively. It was also honored with the "Artistic Achievement" award at the 2011 British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) Video Game Awards." (summarised well in the lead)
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. JDC808, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn♥ 23:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll see what I can do regarding Development and Release in the lead, --JDC808♫ 01:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I know images were reviewed in the last FAC but I'd like to see someone sign off on them here (unless I missed it above).
See Red Phoenix's comment above (first one below WikiCup nomination note). --JDC808♫ 08:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
I scanned the lead and found some issues I believed needed resolution, and would like to see a very good copyeditor (e.g. Eric Corbett, who raised issues in the last FAC, or John) walk through the entire article before we consider promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
If I may comment on your changes, I had it as "First released", because without the "First", IMO it makes it sound like it was released everywhere on March 16, 2010. I don't necessarily agree with your statement of the second change, but your change wasn't bad, though the wording was a bit awkward IMO. I would prefer to not involve those two editors because I have not had good experiences with either of them. --JDC808♫ 08:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - The prose is not FA standard and needs more attention. There is excessive use of "also" and awkward phrases such as "while the player can still control Kratos while the camera is panning. A first-person camera view was also utilized for the final portion of the Poseidon and Zeus boss fights". Utilized is pompous – used is much better, and we have have "while...while". These are just examples, the prose needs attention throughout. I am not suggesting an extensive rewrite, just an hour or so of work from a good copyeditor. Graham Colm (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I've posted at the Guild of Copyeditors project page to see if anyone would be available. --JDC808♫ 19:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I was looking through the article myself and I disagree with the "excessive use of 'also'" claim. Took care of the other two points noted. Going to read through more. --JDC808♫ 16:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I've seen multiple people confused on the chronological order on other websites. I removed the "and the sequel to..." part though.
Basically the first part. Because Zeus betrayed Kratos, Kratos is now leading an all out assault on Olympus, which reignited the Great War.
Summarized more of the plot in the lead.
In regards to the second paragraph itself, this is a format I've established (with help) across the God of War articles, which all (except this and Ascension) are now FAs. The mention of secondary weapons is so a reader can see that there is more than just one weapon that can be used.
It gives an overview of the game's gameplay, and lets readers know that you can do more than just attack with some blades. --JDC808♫ 15:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Oppose for now. After looking at this for the last day, here are my other overarching thoughts as a copyeditor active in WPVG: Though I didn't see the article listed on the GOCE requests page, I would be happy to copyedit—however, I think there is work to be done before a copyeditor even looks at it. The harder work of paring down the text needs to be done first. I fear that this article is too long (I'd estimate twice as long as it needs to be: 39kB → at least 30 if not 20). The text needs to be much more concise—this means throwing away information at this point: why are voice actors listed twice? why does the lengthy plot and gameplay go into such detail? why is the marketing important, and if it is, why is it in "on x, y happened" format? Every time I sit down to read the article, I am caught up in jargon and quickly lose interest (note: even though I'm interested in the game, as an outsider to the series). This isn't necessarily cause to "oppose" but it keeps me from engaging further with the text, which is an FAC#1a problem. I'd try reading this text out loud to a friend. If you notice them zoning out, perhaps there is too much minutiae in that section. If that minutiae is important, perhaps there's a more interesting way of phrasing it.
My other (more optional) suggestion would be to compare the gameplay/synopsis sections here with the recent FAC Dishonored 's. Its sections are much more concise mainly because they're limited to what the RS say about it—and the RS aren't going to mention the minutiae that isn't worth mentioning. If you solely relied on those external sources, you'd have a good skeleton for how much plot and gameplay is vital—I imagine it's less than half of the current text. (An aside: while plot sections don't need to be sourced, the current end-paragraph instruction manual footnotes in the plot section make it appear as if the plot is fully cited in those pages, and it isn't. This should be addressed.) The article, right now, is written for an audience already familiar and interested in the series, and it needs to accommodate and engage other, more uninterested audiences. My suggestion is to do this by cutting text extraneous to the essence of the game liberally. The task at hand is reading every phrase of every sentence for the question, "Is this necessary?"
Been looking through and trimming/cutting some stuff. How is it looking?
I'm a bit confused about where the footnote in the Plot section is, because there's not a footnote in the plot section. The only end-paragraph instruction manual footnotes are in the Gameplay section. --JDC808♫ 17:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I meant the plot/setting/gameplay/intro sections. czar ♔ 01:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm still a bit confused. The Plot and Setting sections (which are subsections under Synopsis) do not use footnotes to cite the instruction manual. --JDC808♫ 13:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
As in "(a first for the series)" uses an instruction manual for its footnote. Unless the footnote says this, it should either not be added or another source should be used to cite it. Some good trimming there so far. I still think a whole lot more can go czar ♔ 04:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘That's contradicting. You said it isn't necessarily a cause to oppose, but you opposed? --JDC808♫ 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I said the jargon wasn't reason enough to oppose. I get no pleasure from opposing, and you probably have enough supports to go as is, but as a copyeditor, I do think the article's verbosity adds to a lack of clarity, such that it needs a significant razoring even before it gets copyedited (I elaborated above). czar ♔ 14:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently I do not, because two opposes automatically means not passed despite the amount of support. I still don't understand how an FAC can have a good amount of support and one or two people come along, oppose, and that automatically stamps the article for a not pass. It's like all the support from this and previous FAC nominations are ignored. --JDC808♫ 05:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Czar and I see my comment on the redundant uses of "also" have been ignored. Graham Colm (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I responded to your comment regarding "also"s above. --JDC808♫ 05:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Support Pre my comments at the previous nomination. → Call meHahc21 04:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up -- This FAC has been open longer than even the somewhat extended periods we're used to these days, and needs to be closed one way or the other. At this stage we still have outstanding objections from Graham and Czar -- I'll give them another day or so to come back and see if they believe the issues are resolved, otherwise I'll be archiving it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)