Talk:Blood Knights

Media assets
Saw your note somewhere about your stance on non-free WP content. Have you tried contacting the company for media assets (cover art, screenshots, etc.)? I did the Fez stuff so I'm happy to give this a go if you'd like czar  ♔  18:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I will shoot you an email on this matter shortly.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  22:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources for the Plot section
I was advised to remove the sources from the plot section, but rather than zap them entirely, I'll store them here.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  02:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph:

Second paragraph:

Third paragraph:

Fourth paragraph:

Fifth paragraph:


 * Did you remove them because of source unreliability or just because? czar ♔  13:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Czar - See T's response below.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Pre-FAC thoughts
Is there a reason why the plot is so long in comparison to everything else? Seems like undue weight as is czar ♔  13:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. Our guidelines suggest a 700-word maximum for plot sections. 1,045 words is too long, especially for a shorter article such as this. Who asked you to remove the citations in the plot? In the GA Review, Tezero encouraged them. I'd suggest trimming the Plot down to about 60-70% of its length and adding the footnotes back in. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 14:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's my mistake, if it is indeed a mistake. I guess I changed my mind after GAN, or re-evaluated hen he mentioned an FAC: I said that citing Let's Plays would not hold up in an FAC and one really does not want an oppose vote. The fact remains, though, that plenty of plot sections get by fine without citations. Tezero (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, ref-free plots are fine (WP:WAF), but if it's possible to cite from available sources, that's great. Personally, I've found that the more recent games have their plots adequately covered in reviews (and if it wasn't worth covering in-depth in reviews, it isn't worth having in the article). But to my original point, I think the plot could use some trimming. A summary in half the space sounds good to me, but there are guidelines if you want to minimize the cutting, I suppose. czar ♔  20:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This was my original plot section, complete with my original sources. At 111 words, it is too short, but coverage of this game has been scarce, especially in what we would consider reliable sources. The current plot, after two rounds of trimming, is 766 words, and probably still too long. Tezero mentioned on his talk page (I asked him the same thing I asked you) that I should ask for a copyedit. Perhaps the copyeditor will be able to trim it down a little bit more, but I don't see anything else that I can cut.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  19:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say that plot points not covered in reviews aren't worth having in the article. Many reviewers don't play the games they critique for very long, and when they do, I'm sure they sometimes think the plot points aren't relevant to their main points in the review, they're potential spoilers, or they don't give any particular impression one way or the other. Plot sections could be incomprehensible if we only left in what reviewers did. (Granted, there should be some threshold for detail to keep from telling casual readers too much that they don't care about.) Tezero (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Aside from the sources for the plot section, which I'm still not sure whether to include or not, and the copyedit, which I will start looking to secure soon, the biggest outstanding issue is that some of the sources may not be reliable. I had four, and now I am down to two, that are questionable. Co-Optimus and PlayStationLifeStyle are used in the blow-by-blow coverage of the game's delays, and I haven't been able to find replacements in reliable sources. I personally think, looking at the sites' credentials and considering what they're being used for, that the sites are probably okay, but I've never been through an FAC source review. What do you think?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, plot doesn't need refs (by the books), but I question the pertinence of the plot section. Is it even necessary for the plot to have its own section? If the 111 words is a suitable summary, it could fit into Gameplay without much more fanfare. Reading the new plot, it's hard to follow and detail-laden. Is it reasonable to eke out two more sentences on the plot from the sources and throw the whole plot into Gameplay? That's my suggestion. And as for copyediting, I'm a copyeditor and I generally edit as I read. I wouldn't normally trim text unless it was super superfluous or if otherwise prompted by a current editor to do so. I'd run the shaky sources past WP:VG/RS ASAP. The two you mentioned might be fine, looking at their affiliations and some staff experience. Better to find out now than later. Overall, I'd say that I realized that while just about any article can get to GA with elbow grease, FAC is reserved for shining and exceptional articles, and it's impossible for some topics to ever reach that level of quality. Most of my articles will remain at GA because they won't ever be complete and reliable enough to cover all the FAC criteria. Something to keep in mind. czar ♔  02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)