Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Limbo (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 Karanacs 15:08, 14 September 2010.

Limbo (video game)

 * Nominator(s): M ASEM (t) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsure of his sister's fate, a boy enters the unknown For a video game which this was really the only text that was given to the player outside of menu screens, and could be completed in 3 hours, Limbo generated a surprising amount of buzz that larger productions would only love to see. I will note that the GA reviewer, J Milburn, is seeing if we can free up the game screen images directly with the developers but I do not see that as a potential problem for FA promotion of this article; if it happens, great, otherwise, the images are rationaled for NFC use. I do expect this game to acquire some end-of-year nods but the reception section is set up to handle the influx if necessary. M ASEM (t) 00:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - no dab links or dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I think this would make a great featured article. The little changes you've made in the last few days (splitting the sections, moving some of the plot stuff, things like that) have made a real improvement. Just some random all-over-the-place comments-
 * "Prior to its release, Limbo was awarded both the "Technical Excellence" and "Excellence in Visual Art" titles at the Independent Games Festival at the 2010 Game Developers Conference.[46]" Very short paragraph- you could perhaps expand it by saying other nominations, or a quote, or something. I strongly agree that Limbo will no doubt get more awards yet, but, for now at least...
 * "that can otherwise has been seen in previous platformers." That sounds like Wikipedia is endorsing that view- perhaps something like "which he claims can otherwise be seen in previous platformers."
 * Are Category:Microsoft games, Category:Xbox 360 games and Category:Xbox 360 Live Arcade games not all redundant to each other? Would the last not be the only one needed?
 * Could we get that lovely tagline in somewhere? I see we already have. Annoying the infobox doesn't have room for it."
 * "of The Globe and Mail summarized his" If you're sticking with British English, summarise is normally spelt with an s over here.
 * "from repeating trying dead-end solutions" repeatedly trying?
 * "fewer than five deaths." Isn't it actually five or fewer, or fewer than six?
 * "one achievements challenges" Spare s?
 * "that disappeared once the player has crossed it" Tense mess up. Present disappear would be better. Alternative, have disappeared, but the passive voice usually isn't a good thing. (Additionally, perhaps refer to them as "who"?)

A few little bits to be getting on with- good luck! J Milburn (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All the small language pieces have been changed. I completely forgot to check how the game did at E3 and was able to add more to the awards "paragraph" so that it's better now. As for the categories, that issue comes up every so often at the VG project, but per the most recent discussion and explained through WP:DUPCAT. I do note that Category:Microsoft Games is not in the same "hierarchy" as the other three because MS neither makes all games for the Xbox 360, nor only makes games only for the Xbox 360.  --M ASEM  (t) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources comments
 * Ref 3: "Rock Paper Shotgun" is a blog. What makes it reliable? (Also 34)
 * Ref 28: "MTV" should not be italicised. Likewise 30 & 49 (G4TV)
 * Ref 29 (Cinema Blend): I'm a little concerned by the message carried by this source: "Don't take us too seriously". Doesn't this suggest unreliability?
 * Ref 38: The format should be adjusted to conform with that used for the other references. If the source is in German, this should be stated.

Otherwise sources look OK Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Rock Paper Shotgun is a blog run by four UK journalists with existing background as video game reporters prior to that. The specific person in both sources, Kieron Gillen has an established background in this field, so he has strong reliability. Ref 3 is an interview with one of the game's developers; Ref 34 is more a re-reporting of information from other, less reliable blogs to summarize an event.
 * Cinema Blend's reviews are generally considered expert; the article used here - a pre-review of sorts - is only to support the list of games that Limbo has been compared to. I believe I can replace it with the A.V. Club review (I have to double check which game is cited by which article), and will do that if there's a problem, but I don't see a pressing need right now. (I'm not opposed to fixing it though, don't get me wrong).
 * The CNet Germany ref is made up from the same cite web template. There is no author listed on the article, so the cite web drops to that format (same as, say, Ref #23 (Edge) and #31 (Toronto Sun).
 * All other changes fixed. --M ASEM (t) 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Argh, not sure if I'll have time to do a proper review with this spotty internet access. Anyhow, some quick things I noticed:
 * "The game is presented through dark, greyscale graphics and with minimalist ambient sounds, creating an "eerie" and "haunting" environment."→If these are the words of a critic, I'd rather frame them as such so we don't seem to be throwing out quotes for no reason.
 * And... that's it, for now, really. I saw some minor grammar issues, but nothing I can't fix when I have my own time instead of wasting everyone's posting laundry lists. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * They're words of several critics but difficult to source to one in that fashion, so I've removed the quotes but made sure of a couple references to back this statement up. --M ASEM (t) 15:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support; a fine article. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, just come across this- apparently, the gameplay section is meant to come before the plot. Seems counter-intuitive to me, but maybe that's just because of the kind of gamer I am... J Milburn (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a hard-set guideline, it really depends a lot on how well you can separate plot from gameplay. For something like, say, Doom, where the story is trivial then yes as you get the key detail ("it is a video game that does this...") down first. Here, we have plot/gameplay that are tightly bound, so setting the stage for what's going on first makes it easier to talk about gameplay without repeating plot details. I had the same problem before on The World Ends With You in that trying to explain the gameplay before hitting the plot made it really difficult to the tightness of everything. --M ASEM  (t) 22:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, was just throwing it out there. Still full support; great subject matter for a FA. J Milburn (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Object - I think this has some of the makings of a featured article, but there seem to be problems with criteria 1a and 1c at the minimum. For 1a, the text needs to be edited/proofread just for grammatical issues. For example, there are problems with parallel structure in the lead: "challenging the player to guide an unnamed boy through dangerous environments and avoiding"; note "to guide" and "avoiding". There are also confusing focus shifts: "The developers built the game's puzzles expecting the player to fail several times, killing the boy character in gruesome manners, before coming upon the correct solution, calling the style of play 'trial-and-death'." You have "expecting", "killing", "coming", and "calling", but you variously refer to the developers, the player, player, and then the developers again. Confusing. These types of problems are pervasive in the lead and body text. For 1c: You state in the lead that journalists compared the work to "film noir" so I checked for support of that statement later in the article. There is one article where the writers states the game "screams noir" which doesn't mention film at all so is hardly a comparison. The other source  is actually quoting the game director, so that's not a journalist. More language problems there as well: "Jensen used inspiration of several films, including film noir"; well, "film noir" is hardly a film, right? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's plenty of cited reviews in the Reception section (see Presentation) that connect the game to "film noir", and you can clearly see it from a google search as well (though again, I've included the reliable sources already). I have tried to go through and fix the parallel structure and a few other things but I am not seeing any major problems on the language beyond what a few useful points should be able to fix. --M ASEM  (t) 19:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your rebuttal to the film noir issue. If you state something in the lead, it has to be stated in the text as well, backed up with a citation. Your text contains two other mentions of the term and neither has a citation that backs up the statement you made in the lead. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's more that many of the reviews highlighted the film noir aspect, and thus mentioned this with one ref example, followed by other examples that delve more into the presentation from other refs would be appropriate (it's hard to consider it a "contentious" statement that needs explicit sourcing) However, taking the advice, I've put in two additional sources that make the "film noir" connection on the line in the reception section. --M ASEM  (t) 00:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'll try to look again tonight or tomorrow and see what progress has been made. Do you think you could get someone to go through the writing and smooth it out? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been able to have a fresh set of eyes review the text for copyediting. --M ASEM  (t) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I only see a handful of tweaks and I'm afraid that's not going to be sufficient. Maintain objection based on 1a; for example, starting in Development, "and instead directed the art towards the minimalistic style as to allow the development to focus its attention on the gameplay." How does development focus its own attention? Do you mean "allow developers to focus their attention"? Then, "For the second goal, Jensen wanted the player to only need two additional controls" contains a misplaced modifier. Simple grammar stuff, it's all over the article. It needs a thorough treatment, sorry. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: 1a. Masem, as much as I admire your work at WP, I have to agree with Spike. And this nomination has been hanging around here for quite a while and has become rather large, suggesting it was premature. These issues in the lead indicate the likelihood that the whole text needs a big copy-edit. I think this should be withdrawn and resubmitted after collaboration with wordy editors.
 * 1) You couldn't write a stub to avoid the glaring red link at the top and in the infobox, could you?
 * 2) The infobox pic really leaves a lot to be desired. What is it? Could it possibly be tweaked and re-uploaded to bring out the structure? It's a mystery.
 * 3) "trial-and-death"—it's already within quotes, so are the hyphens necessary?
 * 4) The boy dies more than once? Unfortunate question-mark for the reader at the top.
 * 5) Could I put in a plea not ever to use "utilising", one of the ugliest words in English? Why not "with" (to avoid ing ing, too)?
 * 6) Monochromatic is black and white, isn't it? Why write both?
 * 7) "an eerie atmosphere similar to the horror genre"—possibly remove the last five words? I don't get the reference ... horror genre in vid games? It's clear from the next bit, anyway.
 * 8) Shouldn't there be a comma before "based on"?
 * 9) "Limbo received mixed reviews for its minimal story"—minimal story sounds boring. Do you mean "minimalist"? And perhaps if this is an admired trait, you could add a few words of context, even in the lead?
 * 10) "tied in"?
 * 11) any -> a
 * 12) the lack of an abrupt ending? Just add "the" to stop the ellipsis.
 * 13) Remove "point of". Or better, shave that whole phrase out: "Many reviewers felt the high cost .... purchasing it." ("the title" is a bit laboured.)
 * 14) Logic problem: "However, some reviews proposed that Limbo had an ideal length." Well ... the length might have been ideal, but that doesn't necessarily negate the cost/lenth ratio complained of in the previous sentence. Why the "however"? Recast both sentences, possibly reversing their order. Tony   (talk)  14:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.