Nominator(s): GamerPro64 16:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Described as a "shoot-and-lift-up puzzle" game, Meteos is a Nintendo DS game produced by Tetsuya Mizuguchi, who also produced Space Channel 5 and Rez and had the former Kirby series director Masahiro Sakurai as its game designer. With inspiration from properties such as The Matrix and Missile Command, along with many different game modes including a story mode with branching paths, the game was released with praise from game critics, with some calling it one of the best games for the system.
Before ever working on it, its previous state didn't even have anything in its Development section. But after going off and on working at it for two years (with the majority being in December 2016), the article was expanded with the different sources used throughout and fleshed out sections to make it more presentable. And after passing its Good Article Candidacy and receiving a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors, I believe that it ready for an FAC. GamerPro64 16:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
More of a suggestion than anything major, but I don't think that "and plot" needs to be in the title of the gameplay section. Plots are typically part of the gameplay itself.
If anyone else has problems with the section titles I'll change it. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Ditto for "Sequels and".
See above. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Isn't the reception section a bit short for a game that got as many reviews as it did? I don't see many opinions as to whether its graphics were praised, or specifically what about the gameplay was praised as well.
Expanded the receptin section. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Unlink Platinum Egg in legacy, since it doesn't have its own page.
Is this entire phrase necessary (the Nintendo DS portable gaming system) as opposed to (the Nintendo DS)? I have never personally seen it identified with the “portable gaming system” part, and it seems like an odd clarification as it could be read as implying that the DS has another type of system as well.
In the lead, I would add the year in which the Matrix was released. This same comment applies to Missile Control, Tetris, and Lumines. Add the years for all of these in the body of the article as well.
I am a little confused by this phrasing (Its stylus was criticized) as it seems to imply that “Its” is referencing the game and/or the game developers. Is this a criticism of the system’s stylus or the use of the stylus in the gameplay? It is not made entirely clear here.
Changed the sentence to "Its stylus driven control scheme was criticized by GameSpy's Phil Theobald, who considered it the game's chief flaw." GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The topic sentence of the second paragraph of the “Reception” section is somewhat misleading. It says that the gameplay was “generally praised”, yet a majority of the paragraph includes criticism about the use of the stylus. I would revise the topic sentence to better reflect the content of the paragraph.
The third paragraph seems a little unstructured. While a majority of it relates to the critical response of the soundtrack, the opening sentence mentioning the criticism of the plot seems a little out-of-place. I would see if there was a way to more seamlessly integrate the plot criticism into this section.
Moved it to be the last sentence of the section. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
In this list (Disney characters Mickey Mouse, Jack Sparrow and Winnie the Pooh), there is a comma missing after “Jack Sparrow”. The article appears to using the Oxford comma rather consistently so it should be added here as well.
Is there any more information on the reception of Meteos: Disney Magic, specifically why it received more mixed feedback?
Added a review of the game in the article. GamerPro64 01:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
This is more of a clarification question, but I interpret this part (was also planned for release on SoftBank cell phones) as meaning that the release for these phones did not occur. Is that a correct assumption on my part?
Yes I believe so. Cannot find proof it was released for the cell phones. GamerPro64 03:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
In this sentence (Chinese developer ShangDiHui released Mini Meteors, described as a Meteos clone, in 2011), who described it as a Meteos clone? Was it the developer, game commentators, fans of Meteos? I would clarify this if possible.
The game was critically acclaimed, and topped Chart-Track in its first week. - What does this indicate? A short amount of context for Chart-Track or maybe for what a significant accomplishment this is would help.
Chart-Track is a UK market research company that keeps track of sales for things like video games in the UK. It's like Media Create for Japan or The NPD Group for the US. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you clarify this briefly within the article both times it appears? ceranthor 10:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Done. GamerPro64 15:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Versions were released for mobile phones and the Xbox Live Arcade in 2006 and 2008 - This should be "2008, respectively", so you clarify which date corresponds to which version
"The game begins with a CG video explaining its backstory. In a Famitsu interview, Sakurai said that the video provided a sense of the game's world. The game was demonstrated at Nintendo's booth at E3 2005." - this is a bit choppy; try to vary the sentence structure a bit more in this paragraph overall
Re-worked it. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
"The game debuted at number one by Chart-Track for the week of September 24, 2005, " - same note as for the lead
Explained in my first point. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The game was compared to other puzzle games, such as Tetris and Lumines - Are you trying to say that its sales were comparable? Or just plainly stating that they were compared by critics? If it's the latter, clarify that
Clarified it as the latter. GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Although it was originally planned for an October 2008 release, it was delayed until December 10. - Does the source explain why?
No they do not. Destructoid joking explained the delay was "because Microsoft likes to make your lives miserable." GamerPro64 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Prose looks pretty tight, though I still think certain parts are a bit choppy. ceranthor 19:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The Simple mode allows quick play, - What does this mean?
I expanded the sentence to explain more of the Simple mode. Think it makes more sense now. GamerPro64 04:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
The game was demonstrated at Nintendo's booth at E3 2005. - might make sense to use this to start the following paragraph, instead of leaving it at the end of the current one
I made a couple of minor changes - in two minds about some of the quotes but can see reasons for leaving them there. Overall I can't see anything missing or needing rewording. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 13:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Did some things for it. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
"equated it to using the C-stick on the GameCube controller for Super Smash Bros. Melee (2001)" this would be trivia unless the allusion is explained
Removed it. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
"Meteos' gameplay was generally well received," generalizations like these need direct citations, as the only immediate cite is IGN, which does not make this claim for the whole of the game's reception (it is different to say "multiple reviewers praised the gameplay" with multiple refs to follow)
Used your suggestion. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to follow the barrage of reviewer names—I'd consider them unnecessary; many of their statements can be made with simply the publication's name or even no affiliation at all (when there is no opinion involved)
Reworked it. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Footnote for the Japanese title is not needed when the game is primarily known by an English-language/Latin-character title, not even as a footnote (WP:VGG#Lead, which has other general advice for Reception and other sections as well)
Works for me. Removing then. GamerPro64 03:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Fleshed out the second image's rationale. Is ALT Text required now? GamerPro64 21:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Not as far as I know, but since they are image related I do by default comment on them. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator comments: Just looking at the lead, I'm not sure "and topped UK market research company Chart-Track in its first week" makes sense: missing word (as I'm pretty sure a game can't top a market research company)? "It was compared to other puzzle games" immediately begs the question "who compared it". Also, the word "game" appears eight times in the lead (nine if we include "Game Award") which is a little jarring to read. Then in the first sentence of "Gameplay and plot", we have "Described as a "shoot-and-lift-up puzzle" game"; we have a quote but no in-text attribution. And I'm not too keen on the construction of "Meteos' core gameplay mechanic has players move colored blocks". So I think we need a few more eyes on 1a. Also, I notice that Czar had a few concerns about the reception section and "X said Y"; I'd like a little reassurance that this is no longer a problem. I wonder if Mike Christie has time to have a look at the article? Sarastro1 (talk) 12:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
From a quick look, I agree with Sarastro1 that there's some more work to do here. A couple of comments from a not-very-thorough read:
Meteos' core gameplay mechanic has players move colored blocks: I know what this means, but only because I've had to figure it out in previous video game FACs. At a minimum "mechanic" or "gameplay mechanic" should be linked. If you can find a way to phrase this so that non-gamers can understand it, that would be better, perhaps not using the word "mechanic" at all.
Removed "mechanic". Might be for the best. GamerPro64 05:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Aligning three (or more) meteos [...] cause them to ignite and rise: verb number.
I don't know what you mean. GamerPro64 05:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Was taken care of by Ceranthor. GamerPro64 05:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Judging from the powerup description, I think the player will die if too many meteos accumulate at the bottom of the screen, but that's never stated.
Forgot about that tidbit. Added it in. GamerPro64 23:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The game also has a multiplayer mode, where the player can send up to four other players a demo to play against each other with one game cartridge. This is too compressed for me to understand. What does the game cartridge have to do with it? Is this done over the internet, or locally, using wifi?
The reception section does seem to have thematic organization, which is a good start, but it is still a bit "X said Y"; the paragraphs are not much more than grouped listings of opinions. Czar is better than I am at this for video games; perhaps he can advise. A couple of examples: Nintendo World Report thought that music fans would find something they liked from the broad selection: this is a bland comment, and doesn't really deserve pulling out as a specific opinion. Why not merge it with the previous two comments, which are both about music, remove the direct quotes, and construct a sentence that describes the merged opinions, citing those sources? Then use a quote to illustrate, if you like. And why is the "incomprehensible" comment (about the plot) in the last paragraph, which is about visuals and music?
I think a copyedit would help, but the reception section needs a bit more than just a copyedit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I did get a copyedit for the article before taking it to FAC, though I did rework on the reception section during this review. I'll ask for another one. GamerPro64 22:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Looking back, I see some more issues with the article's prose. I am trying to go through and copyedit throughout today. ceranthor 21:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
I've performed an initial copyedit. Let me know if you think it's a move in the right direction, Mike Christie. ceranthor 01:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
That's certainly an improvement. The first two paragraphs of the reception section aren't too bad, but the third is still really just a list of opinions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: just an update on the copyedit, Baffle gab1978 has started doing a copyedit for the article after making a request at the Guild of Copy Editors. GamerPro64 01:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. The copyedits have improved the prose, and I've struck the specific points above. I started this pass by looking at the reception section, and I don't believe it is at FA quality yet. The problems can't be fixed by copyediting; the grammar is fine. It's a more structural, or perhaps compositional, issue. Here are two specific points.
Game critics compared Meteos to other puzzle games, such as Tetris and Lumines. I took a look at the three cited reviews. Here are the relevant quotes from one of them (IGN): "[Meteos] is just as brilliant a puzzle game"; "can't be considered a Tetris clone, nor does it feel derived from any other non-Tetris titles on the market", "isn't a game that you can zone out with like in Tetris or Lumines", "like Lumines and its unlockable songs and skins, Meteos keeps the player's interest with dozens of different worlds...", "Lumines is a fantastic PSP puzzler, just as Meteos is an excellent DS one. Both games have their own merits, but I'm giving the nod to Meteos due to its more unique design, its incredible focus on a cool presentation, and its intense multiplayer sessions. Just like Tetris on the Game Boy, Meteos fits the DS platform like a glove, and the game should not be missed." Just saying that the reviewers compared the games tells us very little; IGN made many specific comments, and some of this should be apparent in the review.
Take a look at WP:RECEPTION, and then read the middle paragraph of the reception section here. The structure is "IGN commended..., while G4 called.... Greg praised.... GameSpy criticized.... A reviewer noted.... Nintendo World Report also noted.... A review was more critical, calling...." This is the "A said B" problem. Instead of being structured around quotes, this should be structured around telling us what was praised, gathering points made in different reviews together, and only then illustrating them with quotes.
Thank you for your complete review of the article, Mike. Am currently trying to figure out how to fix the issues you have brought up, primarily the second point, before this review gets closed. GamerPro64 15:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't ususally comment on quality assessments but since I've been mentioned I may as well. I do my best to clarify and condense text but I'm not perfect and someone here is bound to disagree with my stylistic choices, so feel free to make changes. A couple of points encoutered thus far:
I didn't quite understand topped the UK market research company Chart-Track in its first week. eiher. There needs to be the title of the relevent chart produced by the company, not just the company's name.
I reworked that sentence into "reached number one in DS sales in the UK market during its first week, according to research company Chart-Track." The title itself for the charts isn't really a title, judging by the link to the charts. GamerPro64 16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, that makes more sense; thanks GP64. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Having found no Oxford commas (mentioned above) in the lead, from which I infer is the article's dominant style, I've been removing them all from the body text. Feel free to replace them if you wish.
I'll probably finish the c/e tonight, I'm about half-way through it now. I'll post here when I'm done.
Feel free to bring up any problems I should probably deal with; however, I'm not a content-building editor, just part of the clean-up crew; therefore, I seldom involve myself in content matters. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
My requested GOCE copy-edit is now Done; feel free to alter the article as you wish. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
I only looked at the lead, but it has a few problems, I think:
Produced by Q Entertainment founder Tetsuya Mizuguchi and designed by Masahiro Sakurai, the game was released worldwide in 2005. This "XXX, YYY" structure is easily misused: XXXX and YYYY should be related, and these aren't.
Meteos was inspired by the video game Missile Command (1980), the film The Matrix (1999) and the TV series 24 (2001-2010). Without further explanation this seems like a random list. So this puzzle game was inspired by The Matrix? What? How? Be specific or omit this.
Playable characters include thirty-two aliens and their respective planets. This suggests you can play as alien planets. Is this the case? If so, what does that mean?
Meteos received critical acclaim, and topped the UK market research company Chart-Track in its first week. What does it mean to "top a company"? If this is a company that makes sales charts then can't you say it topped the chart?
It was compared to other puzzle games, such as Tetris (1984) and Lumines (2004). Compared how? What did the comparisons produce? Is it better/worse/different from/similar to those games? Popcornduff (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
There is very little here if you strip away the various release dates, awards, etc. Improving the prose and what have you won't get away from this fundamental fact. Ceoil (talk) 12:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
I can't help but think that this is a rather vague reason to Oppose. GamerPro64 03:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking that Ceoil is claiming that it doesn't meet points 1b and 1c of the featured article criteria. I don't think it's the case at all, however - there is a fair amount of commentary on production history, reception, technical features and the like, Of course, I do usually review articles on point 3 so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Closing comment: There are two standing opposes, so I think it is time to archive this nomination as there is no consensus to promote. I would recommend working on the issues raised away from FAC. In any case, it can be renominated after the usual two-week waiting period. Sarastro (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)