Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1080° Snowboarding


 * 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 promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.

1080° Snowboarding

 * 1st FAC
 * 2nd FAC

This article represents many months worth of work, and I think it’s finally ready. The first nomination highlighted many problems, which have now been addressed, and the second nomination was withdrawn by me personally in late November, for lack of paper resources. With the help of several editors, the article now contains two Edge reviews, the CVG review (Computer and Video games magazine), and a retrospective review from Official Nintendo Magazine to balance things up, as well as the manual. Any suggestions or comments would be welcomed.--CM (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's my critique:
 * I'd question the Mobygames in external links. This doesn't provide anything beyond what this article offers, and is quite unreliable, apparently.


 * Ref 42 is broken; even still, I'm not sure about "FryGuy64" as an author of this link. Are you allowed to use forum names? Even still, how reliable can something be from this person?
 * ✅ new ref


 * Unless I'm missing something, ref 2 and 16 are exactly the same&mdash;they should be under the same name.


 * "one-on-one or single player snowboard racing video game"&mdash;"one-on-one" seems too infromal and jargon-like. Isn't multi-player applicable?
 * ✅ but not sure if its an improvement


 * "The game plays by controlling"&mdash;nice to know that the game can play itself, please reword.
 * ✅ added a subject
 * Another user has changed this, but my point was that you had written "the game plays"&mdash;the game does not play anything. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  11:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "from the third-person perspective, and uses a combination" the transition here seems awkward to me.
 * um....what transition? I don't really see how the sentence can be be improved. Do you have something in mind?
 * Sorry, I just don't have a clue what I'm talking about. User:Jay32183's edit is what I wanted relating to this. It is an improvement :) Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  10:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So its ✅ I guess then.


 * "The game features five playable snowboarders representing four countries and contains eight levels." I'd omit "representing four countries" to make it more concise.
 * ✅ gone


 * A pedantic one maybe: "The game spawned the sequel 1080° Avalanche". I'd reword it. Technically, to spawn means to make an offspring, or to produce. But then this word should be related to the makers and not the game.
 * Tried a couple words. I think spurred works. Do you know of anything better?


 * I've said this in the old FAC, but the lead is still too short&mdash;especially if it is to become an FA.
 * Not sure on this one; its a rather small article (several years old, no story) what do you think I should expound upon within the lead?
 * Firstly, one question I want to ask is whether the characters have backstories&mdash;or any vestige of a plot to it&mdash;apart from their countries; if so, it should be included, and maybe a brief mention in the lead. As for the lead, maybe another sentence on gameplay; maybe another sentence Avalanche (brief). Possibly a mention of sales. Also, "The game features five playable snowboarders and contains eight levels." seems to fit better in the first paragraph. The lead is a trick area, though. Ashnard  Talk  Contribs  18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No back stories, no plot. There isn't even any talking between the characters at any time either. I added in a clause about sales, and Pagrashtak just rewrote the lead. Is it up to snuff?


 * "Each snowboarder has different abilities and is suited for different levels and modes." Please expand on what is meant. Does this mean statistically, or specific skills; if so specifiy, or give an example. Same for this: "Each board also excels in different situations". Do the boards have a particular weight or asymmetry in design to each other? Abilites is too broad to leave unexplained.
 * Better now?
 * Definitely, yes.


 * "one from Canada, one from United States, one from the United Kingdom, and two from Japan." To refrain from repeating "one from", how about "two from Japan, and one each from Canada, America, and the United Kingdom".


 * "1080° was the clear leader among snowboarding titles of the era". Firstly, who defines "era" here? What era? Secondly, who said this? "Clear" may seem a bit too POV here, too.
 * IGN said this, and I think I made that more clear that more clear in the rewrite


 * "[t]he crouch move alone - which makes for supertight turns - makes this fun to play": I hope the source did actually use these hyphens here. This is not a fault, I'm just making sure.
 * Yeah they did


 * "1080°'s sound effects were also critically praised." I'd give a quote here, since this is the only mention of music.
 * ✅ Added some.


 * "it sold fewer copies than its programmers' first game, Wave Race 64, with 1,950,000 units in total with 154,000 in Japan." I'm not totally sure on this, but this may constitute Original synthesis. But as I say, I may be wrong.
 * ✅ Fixed it to be safe

I hope that this helps. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Some replies. I'll make more tomorrow.--CM (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Another round of replies.--CM (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Even More replies; I think it's all completed.--CM (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, are we good?--CM (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Support: Well-written and comprehensive. You've done a great job for such an old and obscure game. The last reservation I have is that you may want to consider merging some paragraphs in "Development" to improve presentation. You have multiple short paragraphs currently. This is only a suggestion, though. Well done. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  10:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Support the article is comprehensible, and well-referenced. Seems enough to finally pass. igordebraga ≠ 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Conditional support. Great work on getting the article up to this level. The sentence about music in the development section seems oddly placed, right after the information about the game's release, which to me should be the closing statement of the section. And the word "finally" doesn't make any sense, given that the music was composed before the game's release, not after (as the word "final" would imply). Could you possibly move it up in the section a little bit with the rest of the development info, perhaps to the end of the paragraph above it? I can't see anything else that I'd really change. Green451 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I think it was originally a below-par execution on my part of one of Ashnard's suggestion to merge the paragraphs. "Finally" only implied it was the last idea in the section, but I think both of your suggestions finish off development properly now. Other suggestions?--CM (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to director: Green451 did a couple rounds of suggestions and reviewing of the article for me in May 2007 (similar to an informal peer review/copyedit). I'm not sure how noteworthy this is, but I thought I might mention it.--CM (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was just about to mention it, in fact. If it forces me to recuse from declaring support, so be it, but I will if I can.  On a separate note, thanks for fixing that so quickly, Clyde.  One more thing I just spotted is that when comparing the All Game Guide review to the CVG review, you say that they "disagreed".  I know you're referring to their opinions on the difficulty of the control scheme, but the way it is currently makes it briefly confusing to a first-time reader as if they disagreed on the how good the control scheme was, period, even though they both liked it in the end.  Some clarification might be useful here. Green451 (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a clause to specify their stance; I think it's more clarified now. Anything else?--CM (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. Changing my stance to...

Support (if my contributions earlier don't invalidate it.) Green451 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support A lot of quality work was put into this article by CM. It deserves to be featured. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 14:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.