Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Conan (2007 video game)/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 by User:SandyGeorgia 01:14, 6 August 2008.

Conan (2007 video game)

 * Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk)

As the primary contributor to the article's current shape, I nominate this video game article for Featured Article (FA). The article is comprehensive, presenting information on gameplay, story, development (game, art, and audio), reception, sales, and watchdog focus without bias. Barring vandalism, it is also stable, having been released for a year and no likely sequels or rereleases. The information are sourced, and the images are appropriate and helpful for the content. Process-wise, the article has gone through a successful Good Article Nomination and a peer review. Thanks to AnnaFrance, the article's grammar has very much been improved. Please take a look and comment on the article's suitability for FA. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Image review
 * The fair use rationale for Image:Conan the Barbarian.jpg could do with more detail.
 * Done. Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's resolved fine. —Giggy 01:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The other images have their significance asserted in article and on the description page.
 * —Giggy 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sources
 * What makes http://www.videogameslive.com/index.php?story=113 reliable?
 * This website is the official site for the Video Games Live concerts. As the primary source, it is reliable.  Furthermore, it is sourced for verification of the artist's performance and appearance, information that are adequately served by primary sources.  Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/820/820218p1.html required age verification; anything you can do about this?
 * This cannot be helped. I believe IGN's site policy for articles of M-rated game, featuring screenshots and such, require age verification (which is a very weak protection, considering the accessor keys in a birthdate).  Jappalang (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All other links checked out with linkchecker. —Giggy 01:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * WOoo! Someone else checking sources! Yay! I concur, btw. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, the responses here are fine. —Giggy 01:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC) You're welcome to cap off these comments if that's your preference.

Support Comment &mdash;Some of the writing could be a little sharper, but overall it is a nice effort. However, I have a few small concerns:

Thank you for addressing my concerns. I changed my position to support.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Crit. 1: Some poorly written sentences in need of better phrasing. Ex. "Their reactions varied on the game's depiction of the Conan universe; several praised it for emulating Frank Frazetta's famous artwork on Conan but others said that the game's graphics were drab and of low resolution." - "their"? "others"? "several"?
 * "Their" was referring to the "Critics" in the preceding sentence. I would presume "several" and "others" would again refer to these critics.  As I am unsure on how to resolve this if its an issue, I asked the copyeditor, AnnaFrance, if she could take a look at this.  Jappalang (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence has been improved. I believe it is now more clearly worded, with better narrative flow. -- AnnaFrance  (talk)  14:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "The gameplay is the same for each level: Conan moves from area to area, fighting groups of enemies until he reaches the end. At the end of certain levels, the barbarian has to fight a boss, a unique opponent who is more powerful than the standard foes." If the gameplay is the same for each level, why does Conan fight "unique" bosses? Rephrase.
 * Each boss is "unique" because they are different from each other in appearance and attacks (well, except for Bone Cleaver who appears twice but has different attacks). The gameplay as noted is the same for each level until the end; on several levels the game proceeds to the next level when Conan reaches the end, on others he has to fight a boss.  Again, I am unsure about this issue, so I am consulting with AnnaFrance.  Jappalang (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Between the two of us, I think we've improved this area of the article. -- AnnaFrance  (talk)  14:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "However, if players block just when an enemy is about to hit the barbarian..." Don't start out sentences with 'However' if possible. Refine tone: "If players block at the blah blah blah..." or something along those lines.
 * Done. Jappalang (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Colored runes are awarded for killing enemies..." this sentence is an abrupt change from the previous one, which was talking about mana points. Reorganize or transition.
 * Reworded to redirect attention to "killing enemies" at the start. Does this ease the transition in reading?  Jappalang (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "When Conan was released, its Mature rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board made it a target for a law being pushed in California, United States. The law was proposed in 2005 by Senator Leeland Yee, who believed that sales of Mature-rated games should be regulated for their depictions of cruel injuries. His proposal was blocked by a legal challenge from the gaming industry in 2007, but California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who played Conan in the 1982 film, appealed the judgment, seeking to ensure that Conan and other games with similar levels of violence would be sold only to those above the age of 17.[48] As of 2008, the case has yet to be resolved." This whole bit sounds a tad awkward, more an afterthought than a outgrowth of the previous topic. Who cares about who Yee is? Cut to the chase of what the law does.
 * I rewrote the statements to these effects. Instead of starting with its release, they focus on its ratings linked to the game's violent content. This change was to provide a smoother flow with the preceding thought (the violent objected to by the watchdog).  Leeland Yee and his beliefs are replaced as well.  Do the changes satisfy your concern?  Jappalang (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Article covers gameplay, development, story, and reception: meets 1.b; all sources check out, meets 1.c; .d and .e also met.
 * Crit. 2: no concerns so far.
 * Crit. 3: All fair use images properly tagged, with rationales and appropriate resolutions.
 * Crit. 4: Length is no issue.
 * More comments:
 * "Its development was handled by Nihilistic Software who was inspired"- bad use of passive voice, reword to "Developer Nihilistic Software was inspired by..." and go through and check for any other passive voice issues.
 * Done. I have reworded it accordingly, and have gone through the text, checking for consecutive-usage of passives in a clause. Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why are there the refs in the lead? They're alone and clumped together, so it breaks up the flow rather badly.
 * Personally I agree with the notion of "no refs in the lead", but the issue was raised up in the talk page here and here. I would like further opinions on this (and maybe some concrete changes to the guidelines for the lead).  I did reduce the citations in the lead by one (by leaving only one GameSpy opinion in there instead of two).  Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead is supposed to summarize everything in the article, and thus the fact that reviewers considered it less than X, which it drew inspiration from should thus be sourced later, so I don't see why there is the need to clutter the lead. Additionally, it's mentioned earlier what the design inspirations were; why not just remove that portion entirely, so it just reads "...the similar experience offered in God of War."? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion (just dropped the trailing clase, it felt a bit weird in reading "failed to match the similar").  Jappalang (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "selected around 80 reviews"- why not just give the precise number?
 * Well... Metacritic had 83 reviews for their aggregation, and GameRankings had 84. Rather than putting down a "83–84 reviews" or "M gathered 83 and GR 84", I decided to just go with a rough figure, which is still true (and tidier in statement).  Jappalang (talk) 01:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment The sources all look reliable. A quick survey of a few of them looks as though they are used accurately. And the images seem to have appropriate fair use rationales. I'm not the best copy-editor, so I'll refrain from comment on criterion 1a. But this is close to FA status, if it isn't already there. Randomran (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a. I stopped reading after "Gameplay" because there are a lot of problems.  Aside from the basic glitches, there is significant confusion of the "player" and the "character" and other game-guide jargon characteristic of VG articles.  At the least, it needs a copy-edit by a fresh pair of eyes and some scrutiny of when the terms "player" and "character" (or "barbarian") are used.  Examples:
 * "Despite the reputation of the franchise, Conan sold poorly and was a financial loss for THQ." Unclear what this means.  Despite what reputation?  Reputation for gore and nudity?
 * Conan's franchise has a long history and quite a following. I am unable to encapsulate this, so I dropped the leading clause and moved this sentence to the end of the lead, borrowing context from the reviews for another leading clause.  Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a case where I'd much rather have clarity than have it removed. It's definitely worth saying that the game should have done well due to the commercial success of the entire Conan franchise—do you have a source that says so? -- Laser brain   (talk)  22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I stuck with the new placement of the sentence but re-included the old clause. I thank you for saying the words that triggered me into successfully finding two published sources that can corroborate "commercial success" of the franchise.  How do the changes look now?  Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "In Conan, the hero is on a quest to recover his lost armor and to defeat an evil wizard."
 * Done. Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "He starts with several basic attacks, and more can be purchased to improve his fighting abilities." Game jargon.. how does one "purchase" an attack?  Imagine you know nothing about video games.
 * Reworded. Is this better?  Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. It doesn't help our general audience grasp the concept of "purchasing an attack" which non-gamers will not understand.  Consider something like "exchange gold for the ability to use different attacks" or something similarly clear. -- Laser brain   (talk)  22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reworded again with "exchange". Would this be clearer to general readers?  Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Either "onscreen" or "on the screen"
 * Done. Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a fan of the "titular character" and "titular hero" easter egg links.
 * Reworded. Is this better?  Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "To defeat the boss, players have to inflict heavy damage ..." The players inflict the damage?  Talk about interactive...
 * See below. Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Conan can roll and dodge enemy attacks ..." How does one "roll" an attack?
 * Reworded to "roll under", dropping the redundant "and dodge". Is this better?
 * "If players block just when an enemy is about to hit the barbarian ..." Certainly the players don't block.  Suggest "If players press the block button ..." or similar.
 * Done. Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "In addition to physical assaults, players can use magic powers ..." No, they can't.
 * Done, although please see below. Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Gaining these powers in further stages of the game ..." Do you mean "later" stages?
 * Done. Corrected to "later".  Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "When an enemy is killed, players are awarded colored runes ..."
 * Reworded, although again please see below. Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Players can also obtain runes by breaking containers and freeing maidens from captivity." -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reworded, although again please read the following Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding the use of "player" and "Conan" interchangeably, I was following the guidelines to write in out-of-universe fashion per WP:VG/GL and examples in WP:MOS (player being a metaphor for the character). Besides the guidelines (although I am not a fan of using other articles as sources), recent FAs such as Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 3, Myst, and Myst III: Exile adopt this manner to address gameplay.  Their successful nominations lead me to think this presentation was acceptable.  Is this something that should be addressed in the writing guidelines?  AnnaFrance, who did the copyediting and had little involvement with video game articles as far as I can tell from her contributions, did not seem to think of it as an issue either. Jappalang (talk) 06:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (as Jappa is basically hinging his argument on my writing style :P) The main reason I use 'player' when talking about gameplay is because all of the above are first-person based, and for all intents are purposes you are the protagonist, not merely directing him (and in the case of the Myst series, the character is specifically designed to be nameless, formless, and you.) For a third person game, that distinction is lost, although I think it's still understood by the reader that "the player can" means the player can in the capacity offered by the game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 12:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for humoring me on this issue—I will continue to make an issue of it as long as the waters are muddy. For the record, I consider David's interpretation of this style guideline to be much more acceptable than it was applied here.  If the waters are muddy, we need to make sure readers know what the human is doing and what the character in the game is doing.  Part of our goal should be making durable articles—imagine five or ten years from now when games are more truly interactive and there actually is stuff that happens to the human player and stuff that happens to the game character?  We've had shock controllers for years.. I don't think we're far off from other things.  Anyway, some issue remain above.  Will give the article another read-through within 24 hours so hopefully it is not archived just yet. -- Laser brain   (talk)  22:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem as I am of like mind in trying to cater for the general reader. I think what shows is that the examples in the stated guidelines need clarification (as in Monopoly, the player does not pass "Go", but rather his playing piece passes go).  David, your examples are used because they are the bulk of video games FAs in recent times :P.  Jappalang (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.