Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:48, 18 August 2009 [1].

Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen

[edit]
Nominator(s): Artichoker[talk] 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured article because it passed GA without any major qualms and had a peer review which cleared up the prose. I believe this article meets all of the FA criteria and is comprehensive and well-sourced. It will also be the first Pokémon FA if it passes! Thanks, Artichoker[talk] 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, 1c. Random checks of the sources reveal statements attributed to sources that don't back them up, and article text that is unacceptably similar to the source text.
    • "Near the end of the plot, the protagonist is able to venture to the Sevii Islands, a new area not available in the original Red or Blue games. It consists of an archipelago of seven islands that contain Pokémon normally exclusive to the Johto region." The source given does not back up these statements. I can't find any mention of Johto, for example.
    • "There the player battles the Elite Four and finally the Champion: the player's rival." Again, the source provided does not back up this statement. I see no mention of "the Champion".
    • From http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/514/514962p1.html, what you've written is much too close to the source:
      • Our text: "... he did not view the titles as remakes, but rather as new games with innovative wireless technology"
      • Source text: "We don't feel that this a remake at all. We feel that this is a new game, with wireless technology."
Given the similarity, I've changed it to a quote. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From http://gameboy.ign.com/articles/463/463431p1.html, more close similarities:
      • Our text: "... despite the previous installments Ruby and Sapphire selling 1.2 million copies within the first three days of their release."
      • Source: "This is despite Ruby and Saphire having sold 1.2 million units in their first three days in Japan."
Changed to "though the demand for the previous installments, Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire, led to 1.2 million copies being sold within the first three days of release." Is this rewording okay? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 04:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Random grammatical errors spotted indicating the need for copyediting: "Reasons for the low amount were never revealed by Nintendo"
--Andy Walsh (talk) 04:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More: The very next source I checked after the above were fixed is http://www.rpgfan.com/soundtracks/pokemon-fl/index.html. It supports this text: "Among these are two vocal tracks—"Teach Me! Elder Brother" sung by Hironobu Yoshida, and "Memory P" sung by Yumi Senka." The only thing is, it doesn't say that. Thus far, every source I've checked has been either misrepresented or barely reworded. I recommend withdrawal so every source can be vetted by an independent editor. FAC is not for bringing the sourcing of an entire article into line with FA standards. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The prose is very rough. From the lead and Gameplay:
    • "They are compatible with the Game Boy Advance Wireless Adapter which originally came bundled with the games, and were first released in Japan in January 2004 and released to North America and Europe in September and October respectively." - Too much information. Also, I can't understand what it's trying to say.
    • "The gameplay remains mostly unchanged from the previous games; the player controls the protagonist from an overhead perspective, which switches to a turn-based battle scene during combat." - Awkward. Try, "As in previous Pokemon games, the player controls the player character from an overhead perspective, and participates in turn-based combat encounters." That's still rough, but it's an improvement.
    • "The main objectives of the games are to obtain all of the available Pokémon and to defeat a group of elite Pokémon trainers to become the new Champion." - It's awkward, and seemingly over-detailed for a lead section sentence. "The player captures Pokemon and attempts to defeat elite Pokemon trainers"?
    • "A subplot involves the main character defeating a criminal organization that abuses Pokémon." Doesn't really mesh that well with the rest of the paragraph. It's a subplot, so maybe it should just be axed.
    • "As with all Pokémon role-playing games released for handheld consoles, FireRed and LeafGreen are in third-person, overhead perspective and consist of three basic screens: an overworld, in which the player navigates the main character; a side-view battle screen; and a menu interface, in which the player configures his or her Pokémon, items, or gameplay settings." - This sentence needs a complete rewrite. It's too long, it's clunky, and it's hard to understand. Plus, it's a paragraph. Cut it into shorter sentences, and make it clearer.
    • "FireRed and LeafGreen are not exact remakes of Red and Blue, as while most features were retained, new usability features were also added. Players are able to access a contextual "Help" feature which allows them to look up data at almost any point in the game." - Full of redundant words. I recommend reading User:Tony1's guides on redundancy removal. Try, "While FireRed and LeafGreen are remakes of Red and Blue, they contain usability enhancements such as a contextual "Help" feature." Something like that. It says the same thing with far fewer words.
    • "Additionally, when continuing a saved game, players are shown the last four significant events prior to saving, allowing them to remember what they were doing last." It's roughly worded and contains redundancies, but the real problem is that it doesn't make sense. Having never played the game, I have no idea what it means; the majority of readers will be in the same boat. Clarify and rewrite.
  • These among many others. Find several copyeditors, and have them work on the prose. I'll lend a hand if/when you locate them, but I don't have time to do the entire article myself. Please note that I am not opposing the article, which would indicate that I have assessed it against every criteria. As such, even if this issue is dealt with, my support would hinge on whether you deal with the above and other issues. I'm focusing on the prose because future reviewers will probably oppose based on 1a, and because Laserbrain was extremely vague in his grammar complaint. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your help. I've responded to all of your specific concerns. But how exactly do I go about recruiting copyeditors? Artichoker[talk] 13:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unless you have a network, there isn't a set way. If you do have a network, it's the simple process of calling in favors from good writers. If you don't, you're in the situation I've been in for almost all of my FACs: ask around and hope that someone will help. Ask at the Wikiproject VG talk page. Ask these people. Look at recent VG FAs and contact the people who copyedited them. Most copyeditors are busy people, so it might take awhile to find someone. When you do, I'll help them out. It took me weeks to find someone for my last FAC, so good luck. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd like to comment that copyediting is not a great idea at this time, since some or much of the text may have to be changed due to sourcing issues. We don't want to waste a copyeditor's time on content that might get pulled anyway. --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's true, but I don't believe that the sourcing problems are as severe as you suggest above. The comment about Ruby and Sapphire's early sales, for example, is an exaggeration; the two excerpts are clearly different. However, per your suggestion that an independent editor should check the sources, I will do it today. Expect a full report here in a few hours. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finished checking the sources. Concerns about improperly used sources were justified, but were fairly minor, and have been attended to. The worst offenders have been tagged. I could not check references to the games' manuals, as I could not find them online, but it didn't look like their use was out of line. However, I'm afraid that I must oppose the nomination for now. I'm doing this because I believe that the article can be brought to FA status during this FAC. For that to happen, a large number of issues will need to be addressed. Currently, the article obviously fails 1a, 1c and 3. It also fails 1b, but this could be quickly remedied. I will list these problems in extensive detail later today or tomorrow. I recommend that you search for copyeditors in the meantime, so that they are ready when the 1c and 1b issues have been attended to. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jimmy, do you mean you believe it can't be brought to FA status during this FAC? That is my opinion at this point; the work needed seems considerable. --Andy Walsh (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I believe that it can. FAC is really the only place that an article may undergo drastic transformation, due to the uselessness of peer review. An edit conflict caused the list of changes I was about to post to be interrupted. Here it is:
    • Since I already covered the prose above, I'll start with the next shortest: 1b. To meet 1b:
      • You need more information in the Development section. Particularly, details about the game's Japan and North America releases, and more on the game's creation, if it exists. When was it first conceived? What kind of design were they aiming for, beyond the stated "simplicity"? Get more detail in there.
    • 1c:
      • 1c requires that "claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations". When I look at Synopsis, I see that it has almost no citations. Basically, cite everything in there.
      • Look at this. GamePro, Sydney Morning Herald, Famitsu, GMR, Times Online, Electronic Gaming Monthly, gamesTM, Eurogamer, 1up, G4. Get these reviews.
      • The article is almost entirely cited with GameSpot and IGN news stories. They might be reliable, but this makes the article look unprofessional, and makes a reviewer ask, "Was this article thoroughly researched?". Add variation by replacing them with other sources that say the same thing.
    • 3:
      • The box shot has an extremely poor rationale, circa 2007. Wikipedia's rationale standards have increased dramatically since then.
        • Done.
      • I don't remember if this is actually required, but there is no picture of gameplay in Gameplay. Standard procedure across nearly all VG FAs is that a gameplay image should be included, to identify elements described in the prose that would be confusing to the average reader.
        • Done.
    • Misc. comments:
      • Rework the 4 paragraphs in Gameplay into 2-3 paragraphs. It will look better.
        • Done.
      • Remove the "Connectivity with other devices" heading.
        • Done.
      • Rename "Synopsis" to "Plot", and add a Setting subsection for the setting details already present. Then add "Story" or "Synopsis" subheading to contain plot details.
        • Done.
      • "Pokémon FireRed (ポケットモンスター ファイアレッド, Poketto Monsutā Faiareddo?, Pocket Monsters Firered) and Pokémon LeafGreen (ポケットモンスター リーフグリーン, Poketto Monsutā Rīfugurīn?, Pocket Monsters Leafgreen), are enhanced remakes of the 1996 original Pocket Monsters Red and Green video games." This sentence is completely unreadable. Something has to be done about it.
        • Not quite sure what you mean here; the sentence seems quite simple. If you're talking about the Japanese text, I think there's a guideline that says it should be there.
          • It's the Japanese/Romaji/Literal translation. It makes the sentence ridiculously long, and nearly impossible to focus on. For most articles about Japanese games, I can understand; however, this article encompasses two games. Two titles mean two language breakdowns, which make the sentence unjustifiably difficult to read. I recommend removing the language breakdowns, as guidelines—unlike policies—are meant to be followed only as far as they make sense. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do we really need JunichiMasudaJI1.jpg? It seems unnecessary.
        • It is a free image that shows the development director. I see no drawbacks to the article by including the image.
      • Finally, and obviously: deal with the fact tags I left throughout the article by finding appropriate citations.
        • I remedied a few of the cite tags, however I have no idea why you added one to "The same design mechanics used to create Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire in 2002 were implemented and modified for FireRed and LeafGreen", as the prescribed source indeed states that "These two games, according to reports, will be slight tweaks to the already released Pokemon: Ruby Version and Pokemon: Sapphire Version that's been available in Japan since late last year." The other one that I did not understand was for the text "The music used in the titles was derived from the original games", as the source states that the music was derived from the original games. Artichoker[talk] 23:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "We had a discussion and concluded as not to change from the basic sounds. The music were arranged by adding extra sounds" is not clear enough to use as a reference. It could mean any number of things, most obviously that they created new music with the same "four notes" mentioned previously in the blog. As for the first one, it's a misquote. IGN says they'll be slight tweaks; you say they use the same game mechanics. Those mean two totally different things.
        • And for "dispelling concerns that growth of the Pokémon franchise was slowing", I don't see how the source source doesn't support it. It states "Nintendo’s fear of its flagship giant slowing down can now be put to rest." I have now addressed all of the tags. Artichoker[talk] 23:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That source just doesn't cut it. It's an off-the-cuff remark from a barely-reliable source. For a claim as serious as that, you would need a far better source, like a book or academic paper. Who's to say Nintendo had concerns? Why does PALGN's claim that they've been dispelled mean that they have been? It's not good enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do this, along with a prose overhaul, and it will probably be FA material. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am very busy right now and have to go again. I've responded to a few of the more easily fixable concerns. Hopefully in a few days I will be able to more fully address these points. In any case, thank you for your very helpful suggestions! Artichoker[talk] 16:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pokémon_FireRed_and_LeafGreen/archive1&oldid=1138469163"