Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1080° Snowboarding/archive1


 * 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 17:04, 10 June 2007.

1080° Snowboarding
Self nomination. listy stub + rewrite by me + Peer review by Pagrashtak + Passes GA + thorough copyedit from Green451 = Current State. The game is weird in that it has no story, but I think it passes the criteria. Thoughts?--Clyde (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, I don't think the lead does a good enough job of summarizing the article. Nothing is mentioned of the development phase, or the game's reception. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The lead mentions that the game was well received by critics, and there's whole section on development, which I don't think needs to be mentioned in the lead. Green451 17:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose. I have no other quibbles then; support. -- Phoenix2  (talk, review) 18:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm not too sure on some sections of the article. I think the development section is under-developed, what does "a normal engine supported by the Nintendo 64", why did Nintendo embark on a Snowboarding sim? Why is "audio" given its own section when in fact, it barely covers the subject and instead could probably just fall within the Critical reception section. The critical reception is lacking, using easily accessible but low quality sources. What kind of influence in the gaming industry does All Game Guide carry? When were its reviews written? Who are GameBits? Its a Nintendo game, so maybe the audience would like to know what Nintendo Power thought of it. It's Japanese, so what about Famitsu? The EGM "source" is just the result of a user poll. I'm also not sure on the validity of http://magicbox.com as the source of games sales data, Gears of War has sold over 3 million copies worldwide and Rare claim that GoldenEye 007 has sold over 8 million copies, both of which disagree with MagicBox figures. - hahnch e  n 18:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The normal engine part was actually something me and Pagrashtak were discussing on the peer review. The actual quote is "The 3D engine is, of course, the original N64 engine...", but both Pagrashtak and I were confused of the implications of this fact. It is from IGN, so I do not think it was tampered or edited to sound like that, but the decision was made that the sentence in the article best conveys the idea. Do you think it should be reworded or removed? We were not entirely sure, but left it in for lack of a better idea.
 * ✅ Removed and reworded
 * I'm not sure what are you referring to with a "why did Nintendo embark on a Snowboarding sim?".
 * Regarding audio, it is given it's own section simply because the information is there and relevant to the audio of the game. You haven't told me straight up if you want it integrated under it's own header in reception or just to simply put it in there, but I really have no problems with either one.
 * ✅ Moved into reception
 * Regarding reception, I wasn't aware the publishers you mentioned shouldn't be included. This game is from 1998, and I personally have no magazines from that time. I also looked through the magazine project, and they have nothing from the time period I need. Gamebits and All Game Guide were simply reviews I found, and All Game Guide did not have any dates. I looked for Famitsu and could not find it, and have removed the EGM poll. Since 1080 is from so eight years ago, there are not that many websites for sales. I know only a small number of places to look for sales figures, and Magicbox had them. I'm stuck in a corner here, and I really don't know what you expect me to do. I can remove though them, if that helps satisfy the critieria.--Clyde (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I found a better source for salesn figures, added a quote from Nintendo Power, and still cannot find any better review sources.
 * The engine quote is strange: "The 3D engine is, of course, the original N64 engine..." I suspect this refers to the Wave Race 64 engine, but the interview doesn't make this clear.  Pagra shtak  23:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has some problems. The Development section claims that 1080 was announced on 21 Nov 1997 as Vertical Edge Snowboarding. However, the reference is dated 21 Nov and refers to the game as 1080. The section should also state that the game debuted at SpaceWorld '97. I also see some random formatting issues: game titles should be italicized, full dates should be wikilinked, and I see "snowboard" incorrectly capitalized.  Pagra shtak  23:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look now. I've tried to address all of your issues.  I suppose part of the blame should go  to me, as I didn't look at references.  I just focused on the copyediting element. Green451 00:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I saw somewhere in one of the references that it is the same engine as Wave Race 64, but I'm not sure. I'll look when I get a chance.--Clyde (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I searched everywhere and couldn't dig up the info. I must have been mistaken. I think it would be for the best if I remove it.--Clyde (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I made some replies above.--Clyde (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is there an image in the audio section? I don't think showing split screen capabilities is important to understanding that section of text. Jay32183 05:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to Gameplay. I think it was there simply because it fit.--Clyde (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "compared to" sentence in the awards section should be reworded. it comes off a bit confusing at first with having the two games one after another in the same sentence without anything to separate them. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 14:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reworded the sentence. See what you think now. Green451 17:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose—1a and 2a. The lead is quite inadequate. And in just a few sentences, it manages a lot of glitches:

Why do we start with reference 2? "1080° Snowboarding is a one-on-one or single player snowboarding racing video game developed and published by Nintendo for the Nintendo 64 and first released on 22 February 1998, in Japan." Last two words stick out at the end. "Third person perspective" needs a hyphen. "To jump and TO perform tricks"? "The game ... The game". "Five ?different playable snowboarders"? They represent eight different levels? (And why different, again?) Redundant "also".

Not professionally written, neither here nor throughout. Tony 13:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As to referencing problem, the citations starts at two because it has references in the infobox. I did some tidying up of the lead per your suggestions, but I don't think it's your style to copyedit or point out every mistake for a nominator. Both Green and I have exhausted our copyediting skills on this; should I go to the LoCE?--Clyde (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It may take awhile for the LoCE to come along, probably even after this nomination. You're better off attempting to find a good copyeditor who is either a Wiki friend of yourself or someone interested in the article's topic. LuciferMorgan 15:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been asking around and am still waiting for a response.--Clyde (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Awkward/ambiguous/inaccurate sentence structure throughout. Example: "The game uses real physics for the board and characters,[12] and was endorsed by Tommy Hilfiger via Tommy Hilfiger outfits,[8] as well as Lamar via licensed Lamar snowboards.[14]'" The game doesn't use real physics, it uses calculations based on real-world physics. Remove via ...; it's redundant. In addition to Tony's comments...
 * ✅ I think this particular example is fixed up.
 * "The game uses real physics for the board and characters..." Still awkward. "real" physics? as opposed to unreal physics? Sorry for the sarcasm, but I am trying to make a point here that there are redundant words here. What is "the board?" I assume it means the digitally rendered surfaces in the game? — BQZip01 —  talk 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried to reword it again.
 * Still awkward. I recommend getting rid of the physics reference. It just doesn't flow well and most games are based on physics anyway (I doubt they truly used actual physics since fluid dynamics requires a LOT of processing power - more than Nintendo provides). — BQZip01 —  talk 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Make sure all references have published/copyright dates (these are often at the bottom of a page and not at the top unless it is a news release), if available. Example #21 should be 2007.
 * One thing I was wondering about. In cite web it is labeled simply as "date", so I'm nnot sure what we put in there. With the Gamepsot review, it says "Posted Mar 25, 1998 12:00 am PT" but at them bottom it says "Copyright ©2007 CNET Networks, Inc. All Rights Reserved." With every reference I have used the former, but I should I instead use the latter? Or is it possible to somehow include both?
 * The second date indicates when the latest copyright was made (today). You should use the first one unless it has since been updated. Don't use both, that is what the "accessed on" blank is for. — BQZip01 —  talk 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I used the first one if it was there, and the second otherwise. A few had neither, so I was stuck.
 * As long as you did what you could. Not all websites can comply. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Published dates on references need to be wikified


 * References (such as reference 7) do not need to be after every usage of information from the source, only after a paragraph or end of information from that source.
 * instead of blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah.  simply put ''blah blah blah. blah blah blah. blah blah blah.
 * ✅ I think this is fixed up now.
 * Still two references to [7] in a row. Get rid of the first one. Same with [21]
 * It was actually a formatting problem. Those are two different paragraphs and I think it is fixed now.
 * Please check #21 too. — BQZip01 —  talk 02:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Several passages are not referenced at all. Several examples (and these are from the first two sections) are:
 * "In match race mode, the player competes...allowed three times before the game is over."
 * "In terms of number of buttons pressed, the 1080° spin is the most complicated move in the game."
 * "It is a horizontal split screen race, and supports rumble paks. All standard and unlockable levels, snowboarders, and boards can be played by two players."
 * "Three additional snowboarders...right or left, respectively."
 * Finding the refs will take a while.
 * I removed the sentences I could not reference.
 * Still missing quite a few. Added tags to help.


 * Several unnecessary commas e.g. "The game features...four countries, and contains eight levels."
 * ✅ This example is taken care of, but I will look for others.
 * look for anything with ", and" and ensure it is used appropriately.


 * In short, it is a good article but not yet a featured article and doesn't represent the best Wikipedia has to offer. — BQZip01 —  talk 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Made some replies. Clyde (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A few more notes:
 * "The game sold well, with a total of 1,147,000 units sold." Sold is redundant.
 * "well received" should be hyphenated
 * "IGN's review stated "Do we recommend 1080 Degrees Snowboarding? Yes" as well as "there is a lot of fun to be had with this game." These embedded quotes are awkward. Try to make them flow more with the prose of the paragraph.
 * reworded a bit.
 * Use active, not passive, voice. Examples (not all-inclusive): "...was well received..." and "The control scheme of 1080° was considered..." in short avoid uses of "be" (was, were, etc) in conjunction with a verb.
 * Can you give me one example one sentence before and what it should be after?
 * Sure "1080° was well-received by critics, and won an Interactive Achievement Award from the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences," should be something like, "1080° garnered critical acclaim and won an Interactive Achievement Award from the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences." An easy way to remember how to do this is to immediately follow a noun by an action verb. "The game accomplished...", "The critically acclaimed game became...", etc.
 * Mmmmmm....garnered. I like that verb. Thanks, I added your example and will start working on the rest as energy permits.
 * Run a spell check (cut & paste into Microsoft Word or use Mozilla Firefox) :Examples (not necessarily all-inclusive): "invloving", "cartrdige" (is "paks" correct?)
 * ✅ checked twice.
 * Too informal (also technically incorrect grammar): "...designated level, whether that be a half pipe..." "be" should be "is."
 * "Each has different abilities, and are better suited..." Fix subject-verb agreement
 * Use no break spaces (&nbsp ; - can't seem to make this work to show you what to use, so just remove the space between the semicolon and the "p" to make it work) between all numbers and units. Use in figures such as "90 percent", "1,147,000 units", etc.
 * ✅ I think.
 * This is not a complete list of the things wrong with the article, but is a good start. Keep up the edits! You are doing a good job! — BQZip01 —  talk 17:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks I try. I made some replies and questions.--Clyde (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay so for now find refs and convert to active voice. I'll start working as soon as possible.--Clyde (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I went through and did a rounds of fixes. Any sections I need to look at again? Clyde (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (moved to left for ease of reading) remove references in the intro per WP:LEAD (these references are supposed to be later or elsewhere in the article). — BQZip01 —  talk 03:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I found a quick reference sheet from replacementdocs but still can't find the manual. I'll try VG.--Clyde (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2007 (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.
 * I went through and did a rounds of fixes. Any sections I need to look at again? Clyde (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (moved to left for ease of reading) remove references in the intro per WP:LEAD (these references are supposed to be later or elsewhere in the article). — BQZip01 —  talk 03:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I found a quick reference sheet from replacementdocs but still can't find the manual. I'll try VG.--Clyde (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2007 (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.