Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom Planet/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC).

Freedom Planet

 * Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I created this article in early June, let it languish for a while, then quickly scurried it up to GA, making further improvements after it passed and then waiting for a while for Tony Hawk's Underground's FAC to close, which would finally happen earlier this morning. Two more notes: every image used in the article is free, and because of the title's relative obscurity, there really aren't any more reliable reviews than those listed in the table and, where they didn't give a score, summarized in the prose. (However, if more are released during this FAC, please be sure to tell me.) If passed, this article would earn me my second Four Award, which, while certainly not the be-all-and-end-all of editing, would be nice. Tezero (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Review from JimmyBlackwing
Article's been languishing awhile, so I'll take it on. Won't have time for a day or two, though. Opening comment: why does an American game need a title? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Because the Japanese title is used in the official cover art (all versions) and title screen and a couple critics have mentioned it as part of larger points about the game's East Asian influences. Thanks for reviewing, though! Tezero (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay; off-wiki stuff has been keeping me busy lately. I'll try to get to this tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Starting:
 * "a 2D platform/action video game" — From what I know, 2D must be introduced via "two-dimensional (2D)" before it may be used alone. Also, "platform/action" is vague to non-gamers, on top of being an informal construction.
 * Done the 2D part. What would you suggest for the genre? Neither action nor platforming really dominates or was purported to by the sources, so I can't really remove one; would you prefer a hyphen or en-dash as a separator? Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be better simply to call it a "platform game", for the sake of clarity. It would make sense, too—most games considered action-platformers are in the vein of Gunstar Heroes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Done. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "an ad hoc studio headed by Stephen DiDuro." — I don't know what an "ad hoc studio" is, and no wikilink to the concept is provided. Should be rephrased in clearer terms.
 * "Ad hoc" is used without explanation in the lead of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, an FA. I really don't know much more, though, about the context; none of the sources even mention individual members of GalaxyTrail other than DiDuro. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That FA is over six years old, and the phrase "ad hoc" did not appear in the version that passed FAC. The sentence needs to be changed in some way—preferably by cutting "ad hoc" and leaving the details for the article body. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, done. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A rewrite:
 * "It features a cast of primarily follows three anthropomorphic animals ; the three playable characters are —the dragon Lilac, the wildcat Carol, and the basset hound Milla . Along with their duck-like friend Torque, —as they embark on a quest attempt to defeat the evil Lord Brevon, who plans to wants to drain energy from the planet to rebuild his starship and conquer the galaxy."
 * Partially done. I want to keep it as two separate sentences since your suggestion is a bit of a run-on, and Torque is a major character so I don't think it'd be right to leave him out. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the emdashed section makes it a run-on, but so be it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not incomprehensible, just a lot of clauses in a row that I'm surprised you'd consider FA-quality. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "The gameplay is fast-paced and involves unique attacks for all three characters." — I get no sense of the game from this sentence. It needs to be replaced with something more meaningful.
 * It doesn't really offer anything either way, so I've removed it. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem now is that the gameplay is not described at all, which doesn't work. Something needs to be there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Added a brief, uncontroversial description of the gameplay that also mentions "action" without placing it in the main genre field. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "starring Lilac in the form of a hedgehog" — This is hard to follow. If it means that the protagonist was originally a hedgehog named Lilac, then the sentence should be rephrased to make that more obvious.
 * Done. It was the same Lilac as made it into the final game, but as a hedgehog. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "disillusioned with this task" — What made him become disillusioned? Alternatively, if this is just a roundabout way of saying that he lost interest, then it should be rewritten along those lines.
 * It turns out I got the chronology of development a bit mixed up in the intro: Lilac becoming a dragon didn't happen until after Ziyo Ling had been taken on. I've rewritten that paragraph accordingly. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "seeking to create something more original" — This clause doesn't work grammatically with the rest of the sentence. Also, what does "more original" mean here?
 * See above. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A rewrite:
 * "She designed the new characters and DiDuro reworked the game based on fans gave fan suggestions for more changes, thereby allowing the game to which transformed the game into its own intellectual property."
 * See above. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "East Asia-influenced in its art style; the title is written in katakana" — The art of East Asia is, by Wikipedia's own assessment, insanely diverse. Needs clarification. Also, the semicolon is not correct and should be replaced with a simple "and".
 * Reworded. I chose to link both China and Japan, but I can change that if you'd like. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really fix the problem. A skim of the Chinese art article alone should explain why: the label contains everything from 13th century scroll paintings to that famous portrait of Mao. Japanese art has the same issue. You have to get specific, as in, "The game's art direction was influenced by medieval Chinese and Japanese art". It appears that the article body confirms as much, so there's no need for vagueness. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done per the body. I was under the impression that the body text would be too specific for the lead, but if "Chinese art" really reveals that little, I'm fine with this. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A rewrite:
 * "The game was released for Microsoft Windows first as a Microsoft Windows demo in August 2012, and then—after a few delays—as a full game for Windows via Steam on July 21, 2014."
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Another rewrite:
 * " Both before and after the game's full release, critics have universally Freedom Planet has been widely compared it to the Sega Genesis Sonic games., Critics praised giving positive comments to its gameplay, aesthetics, and modulation balance of Sonic elements with original content , but were though they were more mixed on its pacing and length."
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

That's it for now. The article's a bit rough in the prose department—it could have used an outside copyedit before being sent to FAC. I'll plug away at this review however long it takes, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the GOCE certainly does keep itself busy, and I was getting impatient. I'll fix these when I'm at my real computer. Tezero (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded above. I'll be back to continue the review ASAP. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

A bit more; I only have a short time to squeeze this in:
 * "Freedom Planet is a 2D platform/action game." — Same problem as before.
 * Switched to "and". Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "The player controls any of the three playable characters—Lilac, Carol, or Milla—while running and jumping through levels and destroying robotic enemies." — This suggests that the player is running and jumping in real life. I can't think of a way to fix it without rewriting the sentence from scratch, but perhaps you have an idea.
 * Tried something. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "involve environmental features" — Excessively abstract. Perhaps, "contain obstacles".
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "followed by cutscenes that advance the story" — Placement suggests that the player fights the cutscenes. Maybe, "after which the story is advanced by cutscenes".
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "As a result of wide-ranging similarities in the" —> "Because of its".
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The first screenshot's caption is a tedious, hard-to-follow list of terms. Strip it down to something that the average reader would find interesting.
 * Yeah, admittedly I only wrote that up in the first place before the image was freely licensed. FURs are tedious in general. Clipped. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A rewrite:
 * " One significant difference from Unlike in Sonic, is that the player character has a standard health hit point meter instead of Sonic '​s a ring-based health system."
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll be back later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, cool. I've been busy lately and will continue to be for a few more days with finals and projects, but I'll edit when I can. Tezero (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been distracted, too. I'll sit down and force myself to burn through the rest of the review soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , do you think you'll have time soon? Tezero (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry for the delays; definitely not my best review. Here we go:
 * "red, crystalline leaves that are scattered" —> "leaves scattered". Less fancy; easier to read.
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Red, crystalline" needs to be removed as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "occasionally dropped by enemies to regain health" — Suggests that the enemies drop them to regain health.
 * Moved clause to the beginning of the sentence. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "the player's health; when the player with no remaining health is attacked, they lose a life" — The player does not lose health or his/her life.
 * Weird; I don't remember writing that. Must've been someone else popping in. Anyway, done. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's still a reference to "the player's health" in that sentence. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "with little consequence" — Not encyclopedic language.
 * Suggestion? Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Can be removed entirely. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "occasionally" — Used twice. Both should be removed, since they don't add anything but length.
 * Removed both. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A rewrite:
 * " The basic attack can be used repeatedly with no penalty, but the more powerful Special attacks, while more powerful, deplete s an energy gauge shown on the game's heads-up display and cannot be performed again before the gauge has sufficiently recharged."
 * Done, but with "until" instead of "before" as it seems to flow better. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "The basic attacks are similar" — Similar to what?
 * To one another. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "and Milla's involves launching a gelatinous energy cube to deal damage" — Surely there's a simpler way to describe the attack.
 * Kinda. Done. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "and she periodically finds motorcycles throughout her levels that allow her to scale walls smoothly" — I really don't follow.
 * Really? Seems very straightforward to me, but rephrased. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * A sidenote: all instances of "also" can be removed from the article without loss.
 * Away they go. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "twirling, tornado-like double jump" —> "double jump".
 * I don't think that'd really capture it, because it's not just a regular double-jump. I can't really think of anything to compare it to, except maybe a more mild version of Peach in Super Smash Bros.; have a look for yourself. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with double jumps that involve twirling animations—Super Mario Galaxy, for example. A double jump is still a double jump, though, and so the detail is unnecessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Tezero (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "by vigorously flapping her ears like wings" — This is one of many informal, review-style passages in the article. An unfortunate step down prose-wise from Sonic: ATS and the finished THUG.
 * You know, for future reference, comments like this aren't very helpful. I've already admitted that I didn't wait around to get this copyedited, so all you're really saying here is that you disapprove of a current FAC not being on par prose-wise with two FAs, one of which you extensively reviewed. And on top of that, you've given no indication as to why this is informal or what "review-style" even means. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To put the point bluntly: it reads like something from a fan blog or a video game review, rather than from an encyclopedia. It's needlessly detailed (the whole thing can be removed without loss to the article's main thrust) and it engages in literary language ("vigorously", for one) that Wikipedia avoids. Many similar examples can be drawn from the article—particularly the Plot section. Such phrasing would be more-or-less fine in another format, but encyclopedia prose is spare and fairly dry, and that's the standard to which we must adhere. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed "vigorously" and a few more. Tezero (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "does not select a character from the beginning, but instead chooses either Lilac or Carol when they temporarily split up" — I'm lost as to what this could mean.
 * Added context. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "The game features numerous achievements such as defeating an end-of-level boss with a certain move, clearing all of a certain character's stages, or collecting all of ten cards dispersed throughout each level." —> "The player earns achievements by accomplishing certain goals, such as completing the game." (Assuming there's an achievement for finishing the game. If not, replace that with the next most basic example.)
 * I've stricken the cards one, since the cards aren't used for anything in the game besides their associated achievements, and I've reworded as you said. I do want to keep the end-of-level boss one, though, as including only the game-clearing achievement seems kind of generic and obvious. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That was the idea, but the new version works. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The plot section is in pretty dire shape. For starters, it needs to be reduced by 40-50%—there simply is no need for four large paragraphs. Also watch for overloaded, unclear, redundant-word-filled passages like the following: "Lilac and Carol rush to the Kingdom Stone's shrine to protect it, briefly being interrupted by Shang Tu's officers, General Gong and the priestess Neera Li, who refuse to believe their claims of a theft plot. However, they arrive just in time to watch the Stone be stolen by Spade, Dail's half-brother who is stealing the stone for Zao in order to discover the truth of his father's murder." Finally, scrub the section of all informal language, as seen in phrasing like "untold amounts of energy" and "the intent of meeting a dragon".
 * Just a note: I think the official standard for video game plot articles is the range of 700-1,000 words, and this is around 800. It's likely that some details can be removed, but it's not like it's violating some policy here or getting into undue weight. I've rephrased the first of the specific examples here and simply removed the second, but I'm confused as to what you want me to do with this passage. I could reword it to make it a little clearer, but that would also make it longer. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The passage, along with the entire section, needs to be condensed and rewritten. It's tedious, overdetailed description, loaded end to end with names. I can barely follow it. Remember the Sleeping Dogs Plot section debacle at FAC? This section has exactly the same problems. Also, WPVG's length guidelines are irrelevant when the issue relates to criteria 1a and 4. You could write a 900-word plot summary for The Legend of Zelda (video game) and meet WPVG's guideline, but the section would fail criterion 4 by "going into unnecessary detail". That's the issue here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't read your mind, but I've trimmed some details and instances of writing that sounded a little like the back of a book cover (some of the last remnants of the original authors of this section, which was about twice its current length), and I'll try to be back for more soon. Tezero (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "brainchild" — Informal word.
 * Agreed. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "DiDuro is also known online as 'Strife'" — Unnecessary.
 * Removed. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "ad hoc development team" — Same problem as when this phrase was used in the lead.
 * Fixed. Ideally I'd simply state that he conceived the game and introduce him forming the team later, but it's not really clear exactly when other people started joining or when it became an actual team. Tezero (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've run out of time again, but these should keep you busy for awhile. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Responses above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies,, I've been caught up in some real-life affairs that... to be honest, aren't going away anytime soon. But I'll have time to address some of this, if not all, today. Tezero (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

, how do you feel about the Plot section now? For the record, it's down to 615 words. I found a few more instances of non-encyclopedic wording and unnecessary details today and yesterday and scrapped them. Tezero (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A big improvement. I've done a bit of follow-up copyediting. If I mangled the story in the process, feel free to adjust my work. I'm going to be busy until the end of the year, but I'll dedicate whatever time I can to finishing this review. Sorry again for the slowness—far from professional. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * To keep this review from taking even longer, I'm going to copyedit the article personally, without the step-by-step prose dissection. I just don't have the time. For any future FAC, be sure to obtain a copyedit before you nominate—it makes a reviewer's job much easier. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Jaguar
Going to be taking care of the prose side of things first:
 * "created by indie developer GalaxyTrail, an ad hoc studio" - Ad hoc? Best make this more clear for unfamiliar readers
 * Linked. Probably don't need to explain it, though, per Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "Freedom Planet began development as a Sonic the Hedgehog fangame" - was it still a Sonic the Hedgehog fangame upon release or did it change to be more independent along the way? The development section states that "DiDuro felt that the Sonic affiliation would hold the game back"
 * It started as a Sonic fangame, but he realized he wanted to aim higher, so he changed Lilac from a hedgehog to a dragon, got rid of Eggman and the rings, and made other alterations. It is not usually considered to have ended as a fangame. Tezero (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * "The game will be released on the website GOG.com in late 2014" - any updates for this? It's almost the end of the year!
 * Late 2014 is as specific as the GOG page gets, and the official FP Facebook page didn't mention anything more. I expect this'll have to be updated soon. Tezero (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Why does "Post-release" have a hyphen and "Prerelease" doesn't?
 * czar claimed that "prerelease" is a word and "postrelease" isn't, which matches up with the red lines my phone's giving me. Personally, though, I'd prefer hyphens for both. Tezero (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure on that, Oxford dictionary uses the hyphen for 'pre-release' and the hyphen can also apply for words that sometimes don't need it, for example 'over-rated' and 'build-up', but I think some of that lies down to ENGVAR. If you like, use them for both! ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 16:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * We can wait to see what other reviewers say, then. Tezero (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Similarly, Jeffrey Matulef from Eurogamer" - needs to be italicised, again with "Jonatan Allin from the Danish Eurogamer thought similarly"
 * WP:VG convention is to leave unitalicized the names of websites that didn't start as magazines, e.g. Kotaku, IGN, GameSpot, Destructoid, Joystiq, MeriStation. Might change in the future, but for now I think it should be okay. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Did the game receive any aggregate scores?
 * No, it doesn't have enough reception yet. Tezero (talk) 17:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The reception section is large, have you thought about expanding more on what the critics said in the lead section? I feel like the lead could summarise the article better
 * Added one more point about reception to the lead. Overall, though, I don't think it could be expandedmuch further, since critics were pretty universally positive and uniform in their reviews. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The lead, nor the infobox, does not mention anything about a Steam release
 * Added to lead. Infobox mentions Steam in the image caption; WP:VG convention is to omit placing it in the platform list. Tezero (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Now a less comprehensive reference check. I can guarantee that someone else will make a more extensive review for the references, but a few things are clear:
 * No dab links
 * All the references in the article appear to be working properly and the citations are all in the correct places, so no problems here.

Those are all of the pressing prose issues out of the way, and also a minor reference check (references aren't my field). Everything seems to be in good shape. I'll support this transition from GA to FA as I'm satisfied with the way the article is written. Hope this isn't too premature, but I really like this article. ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 16:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Dank
I looked just at the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always.
 * I focus on copyediting, but sometimes I read sources when I don't understand what the article is saying. The lead says: "DiDuro is currently saving money to release the game for other platforms." The source quotes DiDuro: "I had that as a stretch goal to try and get it on Android, PlayStation Vita, that kind of stuff, but I overestimated the amount of time and money it would take for that. So what we’re going to do is focus on the Steam version first then move to other PC platforms like Good Old Games and Humble Bundle. We’re going to save up money and try to get it on PlayStation Vita or Wii U." Per our WP:CRYSTALBALL policy and per the "try to" language in the source, I don't think there's sufficient support for the statement in the lead, and I removed it. If he had said that he had invested a certain amount of cash or entered an agreement, that would be something concrete we could report on (even if we know that such plans don't always work out). But I don't see anything concrete to report on here ... I wouldn't even qualify it by attributing it to DiDuro. I'm aware that there's some difference in approaches between wikiprojects on this sourcing issue; any thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about it as long as we're not removing all mentions of later platforms from the article altogether, since that does make up a good amount of what DiDuro talks about, including on the official Freedom Planet Facebook page. Tezero (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Closing comment -- Sorry but this seems to have stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly -- best of luck in the New Year if you choose to renominate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.