Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War (series)/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2016.

God of War (series)

 * Nominator(s): JDC808   ♫  16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the God of War video game series, one of the biggest video game franchises of the last decade. It has become a flagship title for the PlayStation brand, and the character Kratos is one of PlayStation's most popular characters. The series consists of seven games (with an eighth in development), having appeared on the PlayStation 2, PlayStation 3, and PlayStation Portable, and remastered ports appearing on the PlayStation 3, PlayStation Vita, and PlayStation 4. There was also an installment released for mobile phones. The series expanded into a franchise with the release of a comic series, two novels, a web-based graphic novel, toys, prop replicas, and other merchandise. A film is also in development. I began working on this article in February 2009 when it looked like this and have substantially expanded the article. It became a Good Article in July 2012 and is the main article of the God of War franchise'' Featured Topic. I believe this article is now ready to become a Featured Article. JDC808  ♫  16:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Rhain
For clarity, I checked this version. Some really excellent work here, as expected, so I'm going to be as nitpicky and annoying as possible. Apologies in advance.
 * Lead and infobox
 * I know that Infobox video game series has no guidelines on publishers, but Infobox video game states that only publishers in English-language regions should be listed. Capcom doesn't fit this. However, since it's technically not a guideline, this doesn't bother me; just figured I'd mention it.
 * "God of War III Remastered released on..." should be "God of War III Remastered was released on...".
 * "Sony reported that the series up to that point had sold..."—is "up to that point" necessary?
 * The reference at the end of the lead can be removed, per WP:LEADCITE.
 * All points addressed. As per the last point about the reference, that one is there because that sentence's information is not anywhere else in the article. -- JDC808  ♫  17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Games
 * Consider linking Kratos and Ares, since its their first usage outside the lead.
 * I find it strange to mention the Ultimate Edition and Collector's Edition in this section; it seems pretty insignificant.
 * I also find this section to be quite under-referenced, since none of the IGN links actually mention all of the information that they're being used to source.
 * Link SCE Santa Monica Studio in "Future", and use their full name upon the first instance.
 * "Creative Director" and "Game Director" don't require capitalisation. Probably just a personal opinion, though.
 * "As its title implies" seems unnecessary.
 * Addressed points. As to the "under-referenced" comment, most of the information for the standalone games are their plot summaries, so I basically treated that in the same vain as plot summaries for game articles, where it's not required to source the plot summaries. I just put the reference at the end of the paragraph, instead of right after the first sentence of each one. -- JDC808  ♫  17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Gameplay
 * The games and some characters shouldn't be linked in this section, since they're linked above. I presume this was a result of restructuring the sections—easily fixed.
 * Provide a source for the first-person camera in Ascension.
 * Link combo in the second paragraph; remove the link in the third.
 * First sentence of the fifth paragraph has a minor punctuation issue.
 * Addressed points. I think I got the minor punctuation issue. -- JDC808  ♫  17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Main series
 * Remove the link for Santa Monica Studio.
 * As above, roles like "Director of Visual Development" and "Lead Concept Artist" don't require capitalisation.
 * Link GameSpot.
 * Link engine.
 * I think it would be better to reference the quotes immediately at the end of their respective sentences.
 * Link Backward compatibility.
 * Might be a good idea to link E3 2009.
 * Change "Diamond" to "Diamand".
 * I never see PlayStation Blog written with the period. Not asking for it to be changed—just a note.
 * Remove the link for Sony Computer Entertainment in "PSP games". Add it to the last paragraph of "Main series" (or to the Saga listing in "Collections and remasters"—whatever you think would be more suitable).
 * Addressed points. -- JDC808  ♫  17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Adaptions
 * Link Daniel Craig.
 * In the last paragraph, change "Ascension's" to "Ascension's".
 * Technical question, what exactly is the difference in the second point here? I've never actually understood it. -- JDC808  ♫  17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I never addressed this. Since the game is titled God of War: Ascension, not God of War: Ascension's, the italic writing should stop before the apostrophe in order to encompass the official title and no more. Hope that makes sense. – Rhain  ☔ 07:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well that was a lot simpler than what I thought. That does make sense, thanks. -- JDC808  ♫  19:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Music
 * Remove the link for Sony Computer Entertainment.
 * Change "never ending" to "never-ending".
 * "listening to the whole album can seem repetitive" should be reworded. Perhaps even adding "some reviewers felt that" to the beginning would be enough.
 * In the paragraph about the Ghost of Sparta soundtrack, I feel as though iTunes should link to iTunes Store (in which case, the link to the latter should be removed in the "God of War: Blood & Metal" section).
 * The article would definitely be cleaner if Blood & Metal was split into a separate article—it's a shame it didn't receive enough coverage to warrant one.
 * Addressed points. Blood & Metal did have its own article at one time, but it got merged back into this one because there wasn't enough coverage. -- JDC808  ♫  17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Critical reception
 * Change "NA" to "N/A" in the table.
 * The bracketed information in the first sentence seems unnecessary.
 * "(MC)" is unnecessary, since the abbreviation is never used again.
 * Reference the sentence about the games receiving critical acclaim as compiled by Metacritic; just add the Metacritic reference for each game to the end of the sentence.
 * Link GameSpy.
 * Mention who awarded Chains of Olympus the "Best PSP Action Game".
 * Reference IGN's Chains of Olympus review immediately after the first quote.
 * The reference after "Most Anticipated Game of 2010" can be removed.
 * Mention who awarded God of War III "Most Anticipated Game of 2010" and "Best PS3 Game".
 * "players still having to move boxes to solve puzzles" felt awkward to read. Consider rephrasing (perhaps something along the lines of "puzzles requiring players to move boxes").
 * Why was the God of War III puzzle criticised, and considered inappropriate? Some brief elaboration would help here.
 * Remove space before ref #150.
 * Unlink GamePro in the final paragraph.
 * The last sentence is particularly wordy. The word "impressive" shouldn't be used outside of a quote, and mentioning the price itself seems out of place. Consider rewording.
 * Addressed points. As to the bracketed information, I put that there so that anyone reading who may wonder if there's recent sales data, it lets them know, no, there's not. As to the puzzle in 3 being considered inappropriate, the review didn't elaborate on it, or specifically mention which puzzle. When he said that a puzzle felt inappropriate in the video review, it showed the Guitar Hero-like mini-game, but he didn't say why it felt inappropriate. I removed it and replaced it with another reviewer's criticism. As to mentioning the price, it was something that pretty much all of the reviewers criticized. I know that we generally don't mention prices unless it is particularly noteworthy, but I felt it was noteworthy in this case. -- JDC808  ♫  17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * References
 * I noticed that most of the references are archived, but some (#2–4, 6–9) are not. I'd personally recommend archiving all online sources, both for convenience and consistency.
 * I also noticed that some references (in fact, most—#5, 10, 14, 17...) don't use no, despite the fact that the links aren't dead. Not a huge deal, but I personally prefer using the parameter whenever I can.
 * Will be back to this later. -- JDC808  ♫  17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. -- JDC808  ♫  21:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't let the amount of comments fool you—this is a really great article. I found it very entertaining and interesting to read, and didn't really spot any major problems (hence the fussy and nitpicky comments). All editors should be proud of their work on this article. – Rhain  ☔ 11:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I believe I've addressed all the points, and I made some comments about some above. -- JDC808  ♫  17:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for addressing all of my points. After reviewing all of your changes, and taking another quick look at the article, I'm happy to support this candidacy. Well done! This is a fantastic article. Not that I'm surprised, of course. – Rhain  ☔ 07:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, just a note: when pinging or replying to users, you'll have to re-sign in order for the target user to be notified. That wasn't a problem here, since I followed the page anyway, but it's useful to know if you weren't already aware. – Rhain  ☔ 07:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for both your support and the comments to help improve this article more. In response to pinging, I did not realize that. I guess the times in the past that I've used it, it was part of my original post before I had signed. -- JDC808  ♫  15:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support After several times reading I can't spot out any flaws on the article. Great work! Simon (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support As someone quite familiar with the topic and reviewer of most of the God of War game articles.  → Call me  Razr   Nation  14:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - I seriously tried to find something that stood out that needed fixing, but I'm not seeing anything to prevent this article being given that golden star. Well done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Just two very quick comments:
 * "have been praised as" -why not "have been praised for"?
 * Changed.


 * "several reviewers as compiled by review aggregate Metacritic.[120][121][123][124][126]" - what's with so many citations? As I can see they are used nowhere else, I think you can group those. FrB.TG (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The citations are for each game mentioned in the first half of that sentence, and they are used in the review scores box. I could make it so that the citations are right after each game in the sentence? -- JDC808   ♫  21:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If they are used elsewhere, I guess it's better to let it as is.

Comments from David Fuchs
Still working my way through a thorough review, but some initial stuff you can chew on in the meantime:
 * Prose (1,2) :
 * Raymond Padilla of GameSpy wrote that God of War is the "best action game ever to grace the PS2"[135] and one of the best action games of all time, having received over a dozen "Game of the Year" awards.—wait, is Padilla the one giving it a dozen GOTY awards? These sentences don't seem like they can be linked.
 * Tried to rework.
 * The changeup introduces the problem of ascribing a objective statement to a single critic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Reworked again. -- JDC808  ♫  18:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Images (3) :
 * File:GoW Blood and Metal 300.jpg and File:God of War Betrayal Gameplay.jpg—I don't see any reason why these images can be justified under NFCC. The soundtrack is a tiny part of the article, and God of War Betrayal is the only side-scrolling game in the franchise. There isn't any critical commentary that requires the images.
 * Betrayal's is there just to show its difference.
 * The point is, merely illustrating the difference isn't enough to meet WP:NFCC. You have to argue that our understanding of the topic as a whole is severely impaired without a shot of a spinoff side scrolling game. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. NFCC is annoying. -- JDC808  ♫  18:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * References (1c, 2c) :
 * What makes SquareEnixMusic.com and Game Music Online high-quality, reliable sources?
 * According to WP:VG/RS, they are reliable.


 * Looks like web references all archived; this pleases me.
 * Misc. (1–4) :
 * Overall the article seems to be the appropriate length for coverage.
 * Additionally, Santa Monica partnered with iam8bit and artists Jim Rugg, Doaly, and Nimit Malavia to create their own inspired movie posters based on God of War I, II, and III for the franchise's tenth anniversary.—this detail seems trivial and too detailed to go in the lead.
 * Removed.


 * The second paragraph of the lead gets really heavy with repetitive use of em dashes, with the consequence it feels like the prose is stuttering constantly. I think turning these into commas where applicable and restructuring the sentences as necessary will help with flow.
 * Left the dashes on the first instance, the rest changed to commas. Is that better?


 * Although Betrayal did not receive this level of positive feedback, it has been acclaimed for its fidelity to the series in terms of gameplay, art style, and graphics.[5] Similarly, Ghost of Sparta did not receive that level of acclaim, but has been praised for its graphics and story. These seem like exceptional statements to make on the basis of single sources. I think a more neutral descriptor would just be saying that Betrayal and Ghost of Sparta received lower aggregate scores.
 * Reworked.


 * I'm not sure the track listing or reviews of the soundtrack are relevant enough to be included.
 * Removed the track listing but kept the reviews just so it at least has some reception. -- JDC808  ♫  21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

— Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think you'll have more comments to add here? -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try and finish the review in the coming day or two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Spot-checked references to current refs 13, 14, 34, 69, 103, 134, and 146. Didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or bad/erroneous citations. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.