Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ancient Trader/archive2


 * 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2016.

Ancient Trader

 * Nominator(s):  → Call me  Razr   Nation  18:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Trader is a turn-based strategy video game developed by Slovakia-based studio 4Kids Games. It was released on 27 June 2010 for Microsoft Windows and the Xbox 360, and on 17 December 2010 for iOS. The game was designed using Microsoft XNA, and its year long development cycle was executed by six individuals. The game consists of a player exploring and trading in a sixteenth century cartography-influenced map with the ultimate goal to collect three artifacts to defeat the game's main antagonist, a sea creature called the Ancient Guardian.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  18:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for the previous FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  22:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything outstanding wrong with this article. In fact, I've seen other FACs in rockier shape when they got that golden star. This may not count for as much as a review that tears the article to shreds, but I'll Support this. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Ancient Trader gameplay elements.png -- do we allow double-screenshots? This is derivative work when arranging items in a collage. For an article of this size, two similar screenshots may not pass NFCC.
 * I used two images to give an example of the two main core gameplay elements of the game, specially the card game. I am fine if only one is allowed. Though I've seen some FAs use two or three in the same line of thought without issue.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  03:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the other FAs are way longer, which allows more leeway for NFCC "minimal use". But it still (probably) remains derived work, even if a very simple one -- you cannot naturally acquire the double screenshot like that from the game, so you have taken two copyrighted images and created a third one from them. I have no idea what our fair use interpretation says about this or if other FAs have done this. And--as far as I understand--you need to have NFUR for both screenshots, especially since collage is yours, each individually explaining how it is minimal use, contextually significant, etc. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * File:Ancient Trader logo.png -- I'm not sure why this isn't non-free? Are you the copyright holder for the game's logo? Or are we saying it's text and basic design that cannot be copyrighted? The file needs to be tagged to explain this. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Logos comprised of pure text cannot be copyrighted. I'll change the license to use the correct one.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  03:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

(since there were a couple copyedits already, will leave comments here rather than editing some of this directly)
 * Prose
 * Infobox says "strategy game", lead say "turn-based strategy game".
 * Done
 * "Single-player" -- gameplay says it has multiplayer
 * Done
 * "designed using Microsoft XNA" -- "developed", you can't design with XNA
 * True, fixed.
 * Any reason "turn-based strategy video game" linking is different between lead and gameplay?
 * Fixed.
 * "Piloting a ship, the player explores.." - passive voice, something like "The player pilots an ship and explores..."
 * Changed to "The player controls a ship, exploring"
 * "explores a large map" -- it doesn't say anything about size or "large" in later prose
 * Changed to "exploring and makes trades" since map size is selected by the player.
 * "gameplay structure of the game" -- what is a "gameplay structure"?
 * Eh, no idea, oops. Removed.
 * "two-dimensional perspective" -- a link to 2D perspective, since this is fairly technical
 * Added a link to 2d computer graphics
 * "gather tea, spices, and fruit." -- gather how, from wreckage?
 * Yes, it is explained later in the prose. "Commodities can be found in wreckages." Changed the prose to have this information together.
 * "game's main antagonist" -- I don't see the AG described as antagonist in the source, though it might be fine to call it that
 * Changed it to "final boss" with a link to Boss (video gaming)
 * "These can be exchanged for gold" and "sell their ship's cargo for gold" both say the same thing
 * True, changed.
 * "Ports (called puertos)" -- is this the only word in the game that is non-English (no other term has one mentioned)? In other words, why do we need the in-game name?
 * Removed.
 * "Whirlpools teleport" -- I assume the player has to actually choose to enter a whirlpool, they don't just do this randomly?
 * I don't actually remember but I think that's how it works. I'll have to find the game again.
 * "sometimes encounters message bottles" - encounters how? The previous list of things in water didn't mention this. If this is wreckage, it should be mentioned.
 * Moved that sentence to be next to the one listing the things that appear on water
 * "At the beginning of the game, the entire map is obscured until explored by the player." -- this is more of an introduction to maps and should probably be in 2nd paragraph, before all the details about the map.
 * Moved.
 * "artificial intelligence (AI)" -- "AI" is never used again.
 * Fixed.
 * "a card game is triggered to decide if the player loses gold to a rival ship or cargo to a sea creature" -- this makes it sound like there is no other option but to either lose gold or cargo?
 * If you lose the game, you lose gold or cargo. If you win, you can continue without losing anything. So yeah.
 * "card game" -- should probably say "minigame" as this is the first mention.
 * Fixed.
 * "a card game is triggered to decide if..." -- a bit clumsy passive tense. The game can just "start" and "decide" or similar.
 * "powerful color" and "strongest hue" -- while "highest-numbered" is self-explanatory, colors don't have any standard "strengths", so this needs some explanations or at least mention that game's rules determine color "strength" somehow.
 * True. I'll have to play it again cuz I don't remember which one is strongest. I think it was blue-->red-->green
 * "two-point attack bonus" -- the points are never discussed before this and never again. Either they need to be introduced properly or omitted.
 * Ommitted.
 * "following turn" - may be just "next turn"
 * "at the end of the minigame" -- I assume after the minigame, not when it is ending.
 * Changed wording.
 * "allowed to buy the three powerful artifacts" -- allowed by whom and buy where? I suppose this implies "game's rules" and "port", but it reads a bit ambiguously.
 * Yes, the game's rules are the ones allowing you to buy the artifacts at random ports. However, I think the first part "the player is allowed to" makes it quite clear that we are referring to the game (who else is going to allow the player to do things if not the game itself?). The second part, yeah I made it clear that you buy them at ports.
 * It says "seeking three artifacts" and "seeks out three powerful artifacts", but the above sentence says "buy" -- where does the "seeking" come in?
 * I think my new wording makes it clear. The artifacts spawn at random ports, so you have to find which ports have the artifacts (thus, "seek them"), then buy them because they cost gold.
 * "Defeating the Ancient Guardian in a card minigame" -- how did the card minigame suddenly start with AG?
 * Same as with the rest of foes, only that now you go to where the AG is. In the rest of the game, the sea creatures and enemy ships walk to where you are.
 * "awards the player additional loot and previously unavailable upgrades" -- the goal of the game was to defeat AG, so how come there are post-defeat loot and upgrades?
 * "chase the artifacts" -- I guess this is stylistic choice, but--in context of writing for encyclopaedia--the player doesn't actually "chase" artifacts.
 * "defeat the Guardian" -- inconsistent naming, either full one every time, or short one after first use.
 * Inconsistent inline citations -- some sentences are cited, some aren't, but the same citation is used, such as 3rd para of Gameplay. Is this because some stuff isn't sourced (i.e. sourced directly to the game)?


 * Development


 * "designed and animated the graphics" -- common VG jargon, but technically you cannot "design" or "animate" graphics.
 * "a set of game development tools"
 * """most of our team..."" -- can we not paraphrase? the quote seems simple enough and his original words don't seem unique, many indies have other projects
 * "submitted for XNA approval" -- what is that?
 * "by that of board games and of the video games Elite and Advance Wars" -- lots of extra words, e.g. "was influenced by board games and video games Elite and Advance Wars"
 * "Elite and Advance Wars" -- might include release dates (I don't really know if it's standard, but I've seen it done in better articles)
 * ""without explaining..."" -- another paraphrase quote, nothing unique here, many devs/indies do this
 * "design Ancient Trader's appearance" - probably okay, but "design appearance" reads weird to me... you don't really design appearance, you can create appearance or design elements for a certain appearance or something like that
 * "paper textures and clouds" -- what does this mean "paper"? They look like paper or they were made as paper and scanned/photoed?
 * "reduce the color saturation in the game and allow players to decide how much color they wanted to have" -- is this not saying the same thing twice?
 * ""is a big thing for me..."" -- long quote again without any unique phrasing


 * Reception
 * Reviews use way too many quotes some, very long. Almost no wording there is unique phrasing that we cannot paraphrase.
 * "British magazine Edge" -- is it important that it's British? Others are not mentioned by country of origin.
 * "Xbox Live Marketplace" -- first mention, link may be good
 * ""ambitious, devious and surprisingly hard to fault."" -- of any quotes to keep, this is probably a good one
 * "IGN called it..." -- can't have info from reviewer purely a quote. (Also see ref review below)
 * "to video games such as Seven Cities of Gold and Pirates", "Strange Adventures in Infinite Space and Flotilla" -- might include release dates
 * "However, he also mentioned" -- "mention" is not a counter-point to "highly praised", so "however" is out of place
 * "he also mentioned" -- what does this mean by "mentioned", surely not just said that those things exist, in which case it's not really reception material
 * Not quite a thorough review of reception, because majority is quotations.
 * Not sure what we do about Eurogamer and IGN for italics -- they are both websites, yet one article uses italics, the other doesn't. As far as I know, we are supposed to italicize websites with original article-type content per MOS:ITALIC and MOS:TITLE.


 * Source review


 * -- this is a press release, it is not by IGN themselves, nothing from it can be used that wouldn't otherwise be usable from a primary source. "a simple, easy entry" is thus quoting the primary source and not IGN. (here's some of their PR stuff for comparing.)
 * -- what makes the source reliable (WP:VG/RS)
 * -- what makes the source reliable? Also "Developer Summary" is from developer.
 * is 404; and what makes the source reliable?
 * -- what makes the source reliable?
 * -- we don't use MetaCritic for any content information, they don't write it themselves anyway, it's just taken from.

— HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * @. Thanks for the review. I already took care os some and will take care of the rest soon.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  20:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * About the sources: FidGit is considered an acceptable source for indie games, and I've had no problems with it in previous FAs. Same with Indie Game Reviewer. One must understand that obscure games such as Ancient Trader don't enjoy coverage from the standard sources (IGN, GameInformer, etc.). Although this game did receive some coverage from these sources, I had to dig a bit deeper to find substantial information about the game itself, and I think such information is necessary for the article to be complete.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  04:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've no issue with sources not explicitly listed as reliable, I would just ask justification for considering them so. Other FAs may not have done a detailed source check. For example, says "collective of independent gamers and developers" and points to Wikipedia article for further details, while the author has no journalism experience/credentials. On WP:VG/RS, this source would likely be deemed unreliable. If such sources are used in a FA, we have to be well-justified in doing so. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral. I'm afraid I have to oppose remain without supporting on the grounds of sourcing. Only 11 sources are about the game itself, there are only 7 in-depth sources, of which only 3 are currently vetted as reliable at WP:VG/RS. The rest are about sequel, are primary, PR information, or brief entries. While I can support a short article with few sources for GA, I don't believe it reaches the FA sourcing standard we wish to maintain. Especially compared to some other video game FAs with exhaustive sourcing. It's unfortunate, but some topics simply do not have many quality sources, such as lesser-known indie games. I went on a content review before really checking the sourcing, so apologies for a somewhat backwards review. I still think it can be a really good article, but I don't believe it can be of is FA standard simply because there isn't sufficient quality sourcing. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing "oppose" to "neutral" because FA criteria don't really require a minimum number of sources. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Indie Game Reviewer source has no hallmarks of reliability and should be removed. czar  14:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JDC808
Went through and done some copy-editing. If you have any questions or concerns about my copy-edits, let me know.

Support - This is a nice short article that covers a game of this size as much as it can with what's available in terms of sources. I disagree with Hellknowz, though more sources would not hurt, if they can be found. -- JDC808  ♫  21:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "The player controls a ship, allowing them to explore the world and make trades.." -- I feel we are still using passive wording where a simpler form would suffice, for example, "The player explores the world in a ship and makes trades..." or some such. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from JM
This is a nice little article. A few comments:
 * Are you italicising "Eurogamer" or not?
 * "Ancient Trader received positive responses from several video game journalists upon its release. Most critics praised the game's art design and gameplay, but criticized the lack of key elements such as a saving feature and scoreboards." What's your reference for this? It sounds like synthesis.
 * Is the sequel notable?
 * No, as far as I can tell. I've tried to gather enough sources but most of them just say it's basically AT with some improvements and don't go into detail.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  16:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Eurogamer should be italicized. -- JDC808  ♫  05:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It should? Oh okay.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  03:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't bother including the publishers for the magazines and ezines. If you're going to, though, be consistent.
 * What is Gaming Union? Are you convinced it's reliable?
 * Yes, I did some research and I am convinced they are.
 * The author is "Lee" with no further information or credentials. The article makes claims about Levius, but provides no source, this is 101 of journalism. None of the staff, including editors, have other journalism experience/credentials to justify an essentially anonymous article. Can you elaborate what your research revealed that we would consider this a reliable article (reliable author, editorial oversight, fact checking, etc.)? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What's your reference for the claim that this is an art game?
 * Where does it say this is an art game? I never implied it was, if I remember correctly.
 * It's a category. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Would Category:Fantasy video games or a subset be appropriate? Category:Trade simulation games and perhaps Category:Naval video games (or a subcategory) would surely definitely be appropriate.
 * I am adding the latter two. I am making up my mind about the first.
 * It looks like there are other decent enough sources out there which you are not citing. PopMatters, Metro and GamesIndustry.biz, for example, may well be worth citing. Given that this is a very short article, I'm not seeing much advantage to excluding them. See the talk page of this review (I'll save it in a few minutes) for more sources.
 * Ok, now I've added two articles from the Daily Record, one from The Observer, one from The Independent and one from the Charleston Gazette. They're all on the talk page. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not keen on the composite image- I always get the impression (likely unfairly) that two images in one like this are an attempt to make it look like there's less NFC than there is. You should really separate them so that you can provide clear and specific rationales for each (that's assuming that both are absolutely needed).
 * I guess I'll get rid of it and only use one.

I've done some copyediting (I'm assuming this is meant to be in British English? It uses dmy dates, and it's a European topic?)- please double-check. This makes for a great GA, but I wonder if it is a little short of FA quality right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose at this time. Based on the above, I think there are some issues with the article, but the key problem is that this is a very short article which does not incorporate all of the available sources, and in fact misses out some very good sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: The length of the article shouldn't be a reason for opposing. -- JDC808  ♫  05:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not oppose based on length; I opposed based on length and a failure to incorporate all available sources. A short but comprehensive article would be something I was potentially willing to support, as my previous actions at FAC show. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow, thank you for finding these sources! I'll incorporate them as soon as I can.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  16:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments from David Fuchs
doing Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC) — Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long delay. Some opening comments:
 * Images :
 * For File:Ancient Trader gameplay elements.png I'm not sure there's enough of a rationale to use two non-free images in comparison to one; the arguments for its inclusion is development and critical commentary about its art style, while the card game elements are not clear in the size available anyhow. I'd axe one of the images and make the remaining one a little larger to resolve details.
 * References :
 * I spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 4, 5, 7, 11, and 13.
 * I found several unsupported statements: The ship can be moved horizontally and vertically, but not diagonally. The player makes a set number of steps each turn, after which the artificial intelligence does the same for non-playable characters (NPCs). is not supported by ref 1; the player is allowed to buy the three powerful artifacts, which then spawn at random ports. is not supported by ref 4. I would recheck all the content in the gameplay section for proper sourcing.
 * Ref 5 is a dealing, with no archive provided, and does not appear to be a high-quality reliable source anyhow.
 * I echo concerns above that Indie Game Reviewer and Gaming Union don't meet requirements.

Coord note
This review has been open over two months and it looks to me that there are still unaddressed concerns -- Josh and David, can you confirm pls? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian: Thanks- some of my comments have gone unaddressed, and my opposition to promotion stands. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've ran out of much time and I won't be able to address them soon. So please proceed and close it. Thanks.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  23:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * All right, tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.