Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lumines: Puzzle Fusion/archive2

Lumines: Puzzle Fusion

 * Nominator(s):Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is about a 2004 Puzzle game originally released on the PlayStation Portable. It had received multiple revisions and ports along with sequels and spin-offs. The article covers in detail the original game and its revisions. The sequels and spin-offs are covered briefly but have their own article and intended to be summarized in detail in the Lumines article. This is the second nomination. It initially failed because of criteria 1a. I had since requested Guild of Copy editors to assist with the specific intent of getting it to Featured status. assisted with the copy-edit and i had found all the edits satisfactory. I believe this time it meets Featured class.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies for leaving a message, but I just wanted to let you know that this FAC does not appear to be properly formatted. I am not sure how to correct it, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention. Aoba47 (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I tried to format it manually. Sorry for the inconvenience.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary. Thank you for addressing this point. Unfortunately, I will be unable to review this FAC, but I wish you the best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 05:14, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from VickKiang

 * I'm worried by the statement that the game received "critical acclaim", which is inexact and bordering on failing MoS Words to Watch. This could be true, but it needs to be backed by multiple RS. IMHO, the usual ref for this designation is Metacritic, which needs 90+ score to label as so. For all aggregated scores on differing platforms, the reviews were only ""generally favorable", noted by the reception section. Without multiple cited refs supporting this, it seems to be bordering on OR and fails MoS words to watch, the closest I can find is an ABC kids video here, which doesn't seem to be enough to say it received acclaim.
 * Destructoid is listed situational on WP:VG/RS, better source?

Many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I have removed the first Destructoid source and replaced it with Shacknews. the second Destructoid source was redundant and was removed without needing to alter the text. As for the mention of "critically acclaimed", I thought t was allowed so long as it was described as such by multiple sources. I have found 3 sources describing the game back as "critically acclaimed". . I believe the only one that is promising to use is the Guinness World Record source. The others briefly mention the original Lumines as critically-acclaimed. Are any of these acceptable?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say no. On RSP, the ref (Guinness World Record) is situational, [editors] have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage. Because of paid coverage, I don't think saying critical acclaim is WP:DUE weight. VickKiang (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * to simplify this situation, I removed both the Guinness record and the phrase for critical acclaim.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you been able to decide whether the article meets FA quality?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * More minor nitpicks:

More to come. 08:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In the original release subsection under reception, the opening is the same, Reviewers gave and Reviewers frequently, could we alternate the wording?
 * Here, why is IGN's reviewer mentioned when we could just state IGN? Some other WP articles attribute all reviews to its authors, but as this isn't the case here, IMHO, it should be trimmed.
 * I made the fix so far. I'm not sure how that got snuck in. I made some changes to the reception to break up the redundancy of "Reviewers..."Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment Earwig has no problems, did a couple of sourcing spotchecks and looks good. Support. VickKiang 04:37, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs
Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Still...? :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry. Lost my review in progress and got sidelined with IRL stuff. It's coming presently! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 19:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Given the number of issues I found, I think you need to go back through and double-check that citations aren't being used to support text that goes beyond what they say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * General :
 * The structure of the gameplay section seems a little odd to me. The first paragraph lays out the basic setup, but only expressly states the objective of the game in the second one, which feels weirdly late. It also restates information about points and creating blocks after having introduced those concepts.
 * Likewise, you introduce the composers and talk about the music composition, but then rewind in time and talk about it again like it was just introduced.
 * Prose :
 * "The game sold over half a million copies in North America, Europe, and Japan, and earning the title "Best Handheld Game of 2005"." According to whom? (Also seems weird this is a new paragraph but it's never clarified that it's Lumines, just referred to as 'it' and 'the game'.)
 * "Progressing through the game modes unlocks skins, which can affect gameplay; fast tempos make it more difficult to create large combos and slow tempos may cause the playing field to fill more quickly while players wait for the time line to sweep across the screen."—I'm a bit confused what this means, since you said that skins were tied to stages before. Is there some free play or endless mode where these stages can be played? Or is this just for the Single Skin mode (which we don't hear about until later, which makes this part confusing?)
 * A bit weird, but you say Mizuguchi left Sega but later reference games that were published by Sega but developed by UGA; so it might be clearer to explain he left UGA versus Sega since that was the subsidiary where he created those games.
 * "Mizuguchi was inspired to make a puzzle game with music when he first learned about PlayStation Portable (PSP) technology." This reads weirdly to me, possibly because there's no definite article for PSP, or perhaps because it sounds like he's interested in the disembodied technology rather than the actual platform.
 * "In September 2005, mobile game-maker Gameloft announced it would release both Meteos and Lumines for cell phones." Why is it important in this article we know they were going to release Meteos?
 * Media :
 * I think File:Lumines Puzzle Fusion gameplay.gif is a good use of a GIF to give a better understanding than a single image of gameplay, but I'm not sure the 15 seconds given meets minimal usage as required by NFCC—it seems like you could easily make a <10 second version that has the same general info represented.
 * Other images seem fine.
 * References :
 * Source checks forthcoming.
 * Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 21, 22, 23, 25, 29, 39, 53, 57, 69, 71, 87, and 95.
 * In general you need more specific citation information. For multi-page articles or minutes-long video, you really need a timecode or page number (c.f. the manual with ref 2, Ref 7 or 11.)
 * Refs should be ordered in ascending order when placed next to each other.
 * The manual doesn't appear to adequately source "Lumines: Puzzle Fusion is a tile-matching video game similar to Tetris. The objective of the game is to arrange grouped blocks descending from the top of a 16×10 grid playing field to create single-color squares once they have landed", nor the shape and number of colors.
 * Ref 5 doesn't specify the high score limit is for challenge mode, it just says overall.
 * Ref 6 confirms the details of his departure, but doesn't say Mizuguchi founded the new company (it's just 'he's doing something new' in the article.)
 * I don't see where Ref 7 confirms development took a year?
 * Where does the manual confirm the order the songs are heard in?
 * Ref 17 doesn't relate the boss levels to the CPU Versus mode on the PSP, whereas the text does.
 * Refs 21–23 all together don't support the specific songs missing.
 * Thanks for your review so far.
 * At the moment, I'll be applying all the fixes for Gameplay in my sandbox. I don't want to make too many small edits all at once. Maybe you can still provide your critique on the section as i make adjustments to ensure it is up to FAC standards. So far, I think we're almost there with the gameplay.
 * For your second point, can you clarify what section you're referring to? If you are referring to the "Development" section, I made changes so that the timeline of events makes more sense. As for the "lead", I went with the route of "Mention key staff first. development steps second".
 * Best handheld of 2005 was awarded by Spike TV awards and Electronic Gaming Monthly. I hope to add "by multiple media outlets" suffices. I added that it was also named one of the best games in 2005 by several publications. Which is verified in the Awards section.
 * The UGA/Sega situation is complicated. Rez is technically the only mentioned game they developed as a Subsidiary, Space Channel 5 was designed and released when they were still AM9 (not a subsidiary). UGA was dissolved first before Mizuguchi resigned from the company, so it won't be accurate to say he quit UGA. Although technically he resigned when his team merged with Sonic Team (a subsidiary company at that time), I think it's splitting too many hairs. For the most part, Rez and Space Channel 5 are still considered "Sega" games. I decided to add background information in the Development section notating he left Sega after they dissolved UGA.
 * I'm confused about your question. (PSP) is there so the article doesn't have to use "PlayStation Portable" repeatedly. Mizuguchi was interested in developing a game involving music on the PSP platform because of its technical properties of being a portable gaming device with a headphone jack, which he claims there weren't many at the time.
 * I was trying to condense it to 10 seconds originally, but it was pretty difficult trying to luck out on showing both skin transitions, and how the special blocks work. I'll try to do it again.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The draft gameplay section looks much clearer, thank you. My issue is "PlayStation Portable (PSP) technology" sounds clunky and redundant and starts raising questions about what specific part of the PSP he was interested in and whether or not he would have tried to develop the game if whatever criteria weren't met. You can just say "Mizuguchi was inspired to make a puzzle game with music when he first learned about the PlayStation Portable (PSP)." and it avoids that problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The gameplay GIF has been updated to just 10 seconds.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is the current state of the article FA quality?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe I addressed your concerns for the regs you mentioned. Let me know if I missed one.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I haven't fixed the order for multi-refs just yet. I'll make the fix once there are no other issues so I don't have to keep fixing the order after every change.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I made the last bit of changes considering Anarchyte is postponing their review until Wednesday at the earliest. Is there anymore fixes?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * - - Anything further coming here? Hog Farm Talk 22:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
More than five weeks in and no sign of movement towards a consensus to promote. Unless this nomination attracts significant further support over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte
Reserving a spot. Will review within the next day or so. Anarchyte ( talk ) 09:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * One of the first things I noticed when reading through was that in the Sales and awards, it's not clear how Lumines plays into the PSP bug. "In 2007, hackers discovered a bug that allowed them to install any program to the PSP's firmware". This should be expanded using the Engadget article to explore this bug in more depth. At the very least, the sentence should refer to the relevance Lumines has.
 * In a similar vein, a timeframe should be provided to give clarity as to whether June 29, 2007 is a quick resolution of the bug.

Will continue shortly. Anarchyte ( talk ) 05:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * is the expansion satisfactory?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed it a little bit. Let me know what you think. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 12:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There was slight word redundancy, so I attempted to break it up a bit. What do you think?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'll read through the rest of the article within the next day. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:17, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Further comments:
 * The objective of the game is to rotate and drop 2×2 groups of blocks to create single-color 2×2 squares - not clear without looking at the gameplay gif that the blocks have random colours. Consider "groups of bicolored blocks" or similar (bicoloured may lead to the confusion that the blocks themselves are two colours).
 * I changed it to "The objective of the game is to arrange descending two-colored blocks of 2×2 shape to create 2×2 squares of matching color." I hope this makes it clearer and more concise.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * reviewers described it as addictive and compared it with Tetris - is this comparison for the addictiveness or the gameplay?
 * The reviewers' comparisons of Tetris vary in what they focus on. So I can't say what the overall aspect they're looking at. All I verify without original research is that it is a patterned comparison. Do you think I should word that differently?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * disappointed with the lack of an online-multiplayer mode - to me, this complaint seems out of place as the article has not mentioned multiplayer yet. By reading the lead, I was under the impression this game was purely singleplayer. The previous sentence discusses missing features present in the original. Is this another one of those?
 * Online-multiplayer mode is a desire reviewers had specifically for the Remastered. It is not omitted game mode from the original. I added a little more clarity in both the Lead and the Reception sections.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article explains this well enough then. A search for "multiplayer" in the article does not return any hits until #Reception, and #Gameplay is the only other bit that mentions PvP. #Development needs to be expanded to outline where multiplayer was introduced and #Gameplay needs to explain which modes are in which versions. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lumines: Puzzle Fusion (including ports and remasters) offers offline multiplayer between two players. The reviewers are upset that they did not introduce any online multiplayer for the Remaster. I looked everywhere and there is no additional development information that I can immediately find regarding Multiplayer. And I hope that's not a problem. I'm willing to add the differences between ports and remasters.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's an issue that the Development section does not cover the differences in versions. It does not need to be overly detailed, but an FA-class article should not be missing information; by excluding (whether intentionally or otherwise) the differences between versions, the reader won't be able to distinguish why the critics are complaining. Gameplay should be an easy fix: the final paragraph just needs to note which versions lack specific gamemodes. Development might be harder. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 17:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * A single-color square is created when grouped blocks form a 2×2 shape of matching color with additional blocks to create larger shapes with overlapping squares - quite wordy and not entirely clear. I understand what it's trying to say, but only because of the aid from the gif.
 * I may need some help with better wording. For now, I broke it down into two sentences to reduce the wordy-ness of it. I also ommitted "overlapping squares".
 * I'm fine with this. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * that was less daunting for players than his earlier titles - not sure "for players" is necessary.
 * I opted to say "daunting to play". Is that better? I think it will be too vague if I just left it as "daunting' on its own.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * He purchased several PC software packages - should mention that these are music software packages or expand to mention Photoshop being used to edit the graphics.
 * In a previous review, it was included that he also purchased Photoshop but a previous reviewer deemed that information trivial. I'll re-add it back in.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand why this might be considered trivial, but if the article is going to mention buying anything, it should probably include what the source provides. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Mondo Grosso - "performed under the stage name Mondo Grosso" or cut the parentheses, unless this is common practice (I'm unsure).
 * I'm not sure myself, I'll ask around.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The use of the 4/4 time signature allows 16 eighth notes to correspond to two bars - unclear relevance.
 * After consideration, it seemed like it was additional information, but the previous sentence paints the picture enough. So I removed it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * similar to "Vs. CPU" on the PSP - in #Gameplay, this gamemode is called "Versus". Consider "similar to the CPU Versus mode on the PSP".
 * I think that's a good choice.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Release does not mention the omitted gamemodes mentioned in the lead and criticised in #Reception.
 * Hopefully, the changes made clarified.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any changes? Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Reviewers gave the gameplay a positive reception. - summative statement, needs citations. Same issue with some other leading sentences.
 * I added multiple refs on the summative statements. Although I think it's easy to see that Lumines Plus received less favorable reviews just by comparing the Metacritic scores. I opted to simply say it received "mixed or average" reviews according to Metacritic. Hopefully, it's not necessary to mention all the Metacritic scores for the ports and remaster.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Pocket Gamer complimented the single-player mode, stating; comparing the quality of the game to class A drugs. - stating or comparing?
 * this was a typo. thank you for catching it.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * reaches the rank - not fond of "the rank".
 * I'm open to suggestions, I think it's a direct quote.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article misappropriates what the reviewer is saying then: "Tetsuya Mizuguchi's stylishly eccentric Lumines joins the ranks of Tetris and Bejeweled as the newest game you can't stop playing". Consider replacing "reaches the rank" with "is as addictive as". Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * and noted songs from the original were missing - "and expressed disappointment that songs from the original were missing".
 * IGN's reviewer - first time a website's reviewer has been singled out. Unclear why.
 * I'm not sure where it came from myself.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Anarchyte ( talk ) 07:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * hopefully the changes are satisfactory. I'm very much open to suggestions on the gameplay.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've replied above. I also think "the" should be added before instances of the word PlayStation. See articles like Super Mario 64 that say "the Nintendo 64". Consoles typically have a definitive article, while operating systems do not. Outside of these comments, my primary concern is that the article does not distinguish enough between the versions. #Gameplay implies that all versions have all the game modes listed. This is misleading. Additionally, #Development does not explicitly state the differences outside of the soundtracks. Once these sections have been expanded, I'll have another read.  Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Development section doesn't mention any differences because the Development section is focused on the development of the original PSP version. I moved the gameplay differences between versions in the Gameplay section as requested, but that's about all the differences there. I don't know how to add information in the Development section without being redundant to the "Sequels and Spin-off" section.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Development needs to discuss all releases and platforms of Lumines: Puzzle Fusion. Of course, the PSP release will take up the majority of the content, but if other versions of Puzzle Fusion have been released that don't warrant their own article, this article needs to address them. Look at Cave Story for an example. In that article, the ports are given their own section and then the differences are outlined. There may not be enough for a section for each here, but it's something to consider. I've made an adjustment to the wording in Gameplay that should relieve some confusion, as the recent addition introduced conflicting information about how the number of game modes. For an example of an FA that discusses other, less important game modes, consider looking at League of Legends or Freedom Planet. Note how those articles discuss the core concepts of the game (as you have done here), but then explore different modes. What you can do now that I've added "In the original release of Lumines: Puzzle Fusion" to #Gameplay is add sentences like "In later re-releases and remasters, some game modes were omitted." and "Some re-releases also included new game modes...". #Development can then explore them in more depth. There shouldn't be any duplication with Sequels and follow-ups because that section talks about the games that followed Lumines: Puzzle Fusion, not the later released versions of the same game. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 07:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I followed Cave Story's structure while following your direct recommendations. Let me know if I missed anything.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You do not have a source for "Later re-releases and remasters added new game modes or made omissions" and gameplay still needs to explain the new game modes. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 09:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess before I make anymore edits, I would like more details on what you prefer in the layout. You want both #Gameplay and #Development to cover gameplay changes, am I understanding you correctly? How would you like that to be organized while avoiding redundancy? In detail, please.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Not exactly. Gameplay should cover the game modes and Development should cover which versions have each game mode. Aspects that relate solely to the experience of playing the game should be in Gameplay while content that discuss the changes and differences between platforms and versions should be in Development. For example, this is currently in development: "The Steam version contains 21 unlockable skins, and Time Attack, Puzzle, and Mission modes". Gameplay now needs to explain these game modes (Mission is currently missing). I suggest restructuring the game mode discussion to something like: "The original release of Lumines: Puzzle Fusion had [number] game modes: [list]. [explain the original modes]. Later releases introduced new games modes for a total of [number] game modes, though some of these releases also omitted past game modes. The new game modes are [list]. [explain new game modes]." Obviously this can be reworded, but I think something like this will demonstrate to the reader that there are differences between the versions and that if they want to learn more, they can read the Development section. The Ports section was a great addition. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 14:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)


 * #Gameplay now goes into detail about each new game mode that wasn't in the original PSP. #Ports summarizes which game modes were added and excluded for each version with less description.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Time Attack and Single Skin are not supported by ref5. Please confirm whether these were in the original game or added later. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 09:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * GameSpot review technically does mention time attack. For some reason they chose to rename it time trial. I replaced it with Eurogamer's review. I added IGN's review to cover the summative sentence of the game modes.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the prose reaches the level required for FA at this current time. I'd go through and try to copyedit it but I'm concerned that the article still lacks content. For instance, IGN gives priority to two gamemodes (calling them "the two main modes of play") but this article gives no such distinction. Other statements like "The maximum score in the game is 999,999 points" in the article are ambiguous; I'm not sure whether this relates to Challenge or the entire game. For this nomination, I unfortunately oppose . The article is closer to FA quality than before the nomination, but it's not there yet. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I am aware that IGN casually brought up Challenge and Vs CPU as "main modes" but this is very subjective and no other source highlights both of them as the main mode. Eurogamer only highlights Challenge mode, while other modes are considered a "distraction" including Vs CPU. GameDaily also mentions that the most important game mode is Challenge as well. I avoided highlighting which ones were the "main" mode because the sources weren't direct and I didn't want to assume what they meant.

As for the 999,999 "ambiguity". There is no ambiguity. It erroneously mentioned that the high score limit was specific to Challenge mode. I fixed it by removing it. The high score cap is there for the game in all game modes that records scoring. Im sorry if the erroneous information gave false pretenses.

If you believe its ambiguous to mention at all, it can be removed.

As for missing content, what do you believe is missing?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The 999,999 score sentence is still positioned such that it can be confused as being specific to Challenge mode. Also, regarding primary game modes, I've found various Lumines Remastered sources that say Challenge is the "main mode" (PCMag, official website). Unfortunately I'm just not convinced that meets WP:FA?1b. Outside of this, some of the wording is still inconsistent. "Mobile phones" is used in the infobox and the lead, but then "cell phones" is used elsewhere. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:04, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Isn't cell phone and mobile phone allowed to be interchangeable? I originally stuck with "mobile phone" but when I opened this to the guild of copyeditors specifically to meet FAC (initial failure of 1a), the copyEditor opted to alternate between the two. I reverted back to just "Mobile phone".
 * I moved the scoring back to an area in #Gameplay not involved. I could've sworn in earlier revisions I had it exactly where i moved it to. And lastly, considering IGN and PCMag both highlight Challenge as the main mode, I added that in. I was told a long time ago I wasn't allowed to use first party sources for FA articles such as official sites, and that everything needed to be verified through reliable strong third party sources. I'm now questioning a lot of my early advice.
 * Failing 1b is hard for me to swallow. I believe at least 99% of all major facts and details are in this article. What "major fact" is missing? I would hate for this to fail for the 1% that can be easily added in or verify it doesnt exist. Some information in previous FAC was omitted because it was difficult to interpret too. So theres that.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I added in the last possible information I can find that I think is the missing 1%. So at this point I believe I got 100% of info. But that's all I have so far.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 10:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I referenced 1b because there are sources that explain some important components of the game and the development in more detail that the article lacks. For instance, "which alternates between time signatures 5/4 and 3/4" means nothing to those that don't then open up the source to find that "For every two bars, the meter averages out to 4/4, which works out just right for the game". Another example is "Nakamura wanted the songs to be enjoyable, even though parts of them were missing during gameplay" whereby the source expands, saying "The flow of songs in Lumines has to feel good even if a part of it is missing. [...] The music changes. But even with those changes, it has to feel like a complete song". The source is discussing the music during gameplay, not the songs themselves. The article would be better off saying something like "Nakamura intended for the background music during gameplay to feel complete despite the song changes". A third example is in the same source where he says "The style of Lumines' music was originally more techno or electronica, but I really see it more as ambient music". The article doesn't mention ambient music once. My concern is that the underlying core information is in the article, but more exploration can be included. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of the information was directly ommited due to being too ambiguous or their explanations being easy to interpret. No one liked the wording I used initially in past reviews, and no one found a solution of how to properly interpret the information. And in tight situations, like GAN and FAC, difficult to decipher content just ended up not being omitted because no one knew what the authors meant exactly. If you see earlier versions of the article, it had some of this information. There was even info that directly referenced the subtitle "Puzzle Fusion" too but ended up being trivial in a past FAC. It's information I personally would've loved to keep in the article. I can add it back in, and see if you can copyedit it to FA standards?
 * Only because I'm extremely familiar with the game, the "two bars" Nakamura is referring to is specifically the cycles of the Time Line as music bars. I don't know if we should refer to them exactly as Nakamura explained it and easy to understand for the average reader.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I re-reviewed every source and re-added back information about the title meaning. One of the sources is just the web page that originally housed the video from GameSpy. IGN reuploaded it on their youtube channel, so I don't know what's better. I'm open to copy editing. I don't have a lot of time to edit articles, so I try my best to squeeze in as much time as possible. After all these edits so far, do you still feel it fails criteria 1b?.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's looking better now. I'll rescind my oppose and let other editors determine whether to promote. I still think the article needs a good copyedit before I am willing to support. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 08:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

well I'm happy to make further copy edits if you see any problems.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It's more than just a few sentences needing changes. With all the new additions, I suggest requesting another GOCE edit. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 09:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This was a problem in past FAC too.Even after multiple copy-edits that were requested, it them falls on requesting from GOCE without context or even an idea of what is wrong with the new information added in. Youve done some copyediting yourself too to the article. It's discouraging because this is the one and only time in Wikipedia where editors tell me its broken or subpar but dont have a criteria to actually guide me to do better.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 13:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Comment from ProtoDrake
There isn't much here that stands out, but some points that stood out. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "In September 2005, mobile game-maker" - Are you sure "developer" or "game studio" wouldn't work better? Just a suggestion, not essential.
 * Unless it's mentioned and discussed somewhere else, I'm wary of including red links in the prose.
 * Maybe use fewer quotes and more paraphrasing in the reception, but again that's personal preference.
 * hopefully the edits were satisfactory.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Oppose from CR4ZE
I'm sorry.

From a full read-through of the article, and of the concerns raised in the commentary above (especially those of Fuchs and Anarchyte), I find the prose and comprehensiveness not up to standard. Here's some examples taken throughout, but note this is not an exhaustive list:


 * Clunky prose


 * "to play for the entire play session"


 * Overuse of "specifically" in para 4 of Gameplay.


 * "allows players to play"


 * "a personal computer PC"


 * "He experimented with rhythms that synchronized with the game's time line bar and with pacing the gameplay to match the speed of the time line"


 * "By the time ports for additional platforms were released, several sequels and spin-offs had been made available; music and gameplay from those new games were incorporated into the ports"


 * "enables the use of"


 * "distributed as a limited release" not even sure what this means.


 * "1Up.com also criticized the intermittent silence between songs and expressed disappointment that songs from the original were missing. However, they praised the addition of skins from Lumines Live and Lumines II, calling it a "Lumines greatest hits"


 * "Despite having an overall positive response, some reviewers were disappointed in the absence of introducing an online multiplayer feature."


 * Prose that uses passive voice


 * "Additional score bonuses are earned by clearing the playing field or reducing the remaining blocks to a single color"


 * "His goal for the background music was for it to feel complete and enjoyable to listen to despite it changing during gameplay"


 * Prose with redundancies


 * "Grouped blocks have a 2×2 shape and vary between two colors" and "a single-color square is created when grouped blocks form a 2×2 shape of matching color" are almost the same thing verbatim.
 * the grouped blocks are the blocks the player controls during its descent and they happen to be in a 2x2 formation, but they vary between two colors. The single-color squares are the blocks that have landed and form "matching color" is in a 2x2 arrangement. I wish there was an easier way to describe this game. But the reviewers arent consistent with verbiage and the official word choice confused editors.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Additional blocks of matching color can be added to create larger shapes" something that's "additional" "can be added"?
 * fixed


 * "At the time of the development of the prototype" of the of the. Why not "During the prototype's development"?
 * fixed


 * "The music and skins were simultaneously developed; the music had to be completed before the skins were finalized"
 * How is this redundant?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Ports for multiple platforms, each with its revisions, were also released" why is the word "also" being used in the opening sentence for a new paragraph? Moreover, why is the word "also" being used at all?
 * I've seen many featured articles use the word also without any complaints. But I'll concede that it can be avoided.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Also" is used to connect two related things. A new section can't have an "also" in the opening sentence because it's supposed to be standalone. If the phrasing were "Lumines was released on the PSP. Other ports for multiple platforms, each with its own revisions, were also released", it would be fine. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Opportunities to improve flow


 * "The game was..."/"The game was..." in para 1 of Development.
 * fixed


 * The same year does not need to be stated twice in a row (throughout Ports and Lumines Remastered especially).
 * fixed? I think? I'm not confident with my word choice.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * "Game Informer said the visuals are less vibrant..." why is this clause fragmented by a semicolon?
 * Alot of the sentences with semi colons are added in by GOCE. I try to avoid them where possible.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Look for instances of repetition or similar phrasing. There are several across the different sections.
 * I'll take a look. Phrasing can be a bit subjective so i may not end up seeing the words you see. Lets hope i do.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Lack of comprehensiveness


 * There are 55 critical reviews for the original PSP version on Metacritic. Naturally, many of these would not be reliable enough to meet Wikipedia standards. However, at 250 words, the critical review summary's length feels alarmingly thin. Much of the critical reception reads "Reviewer A liked X", "Reviewer B said Y". The music, which constitutes a large portion of Development as well as a standalone section, is not examined anywhere close to the level of depth I'd have expected.
 * A lot of the reviews I do want to use are not available to me since they are physical media. But I can definitely add more that are verifiable and accessible. I wish reviewers were more in detail with the music. In previous revisions of the article, there was an attempt to highlight more music witha. Few snippets of quotes but past FACs have demanded to reduce the trivial quotes.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Perusing the revision history reveals some pretty substantive additions being made over these few weeks. An article should be as close to comprehensive as possible before nomination.


 * Not much on sales, which isn't your fault, but the bulk of the paragraph here deals with a bug exploit that caused a temporary spike in Amazon downloads. This information feels really tacked-on for the sake of it.
 * the point was only to highlight the Amazon sales, but reviewers demanded more information about it. You can see such demand in this very FAC and in previous.

A full copy-edit would indeed be beneficial here, but is not in the spirit of what an FAC is supposed to be. I think this would best serve the article if taken outside of the pressures of an FAC, with the contributors and/or copyeditors working together to make a truly great article, which I fully believe they are capable of. Unfortunately, taken in its current state, I would oppose this candidacy based on 1a & b. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  12:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I actually prefer the pressures of the FAC. You have no idea how little assistance this article gets. I've asked for help multiple times and I get ignored every time. It takes one FAC at a time to actually get real advice. At the same time I also see conflicting advice too, but it's worth it. Once the FAC closes, none of the editors who participated in the review want to help make the article better. I understand if you still choose to oppose.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * First of all, thank you for your efforts to resolve the specific points raised above. Your diligence and persistence is commendable.


 * If I may, I'd like to give my 2¢ going forward. Engaging multiple different copyeditors with different preferences and editing styles may do an article more harm than good. I deduce that may have played a part here. There are multiple alternative avenues that may merit better results. The first would be to take the onus upon yourself to improve your own prose writing. See the following: WP:CRS, Fuchs' guide, Tony's guide, Andy's guide, WP:REDEX. I'm certain there's more. Read FAs similar to the one you're trying to write. Try to apply what you've learned to your own style. Then, open up a peer review before renominating. Engage with a mentor through the process. You can't just rely on others to step in, and that often creates mixed results. If writing quality is consistently being broached by others, there may be opportunities for learning. Your comment about reviewers not wanting "to help make the article better" is not assuming good faith. For what it's worth, either way this FAC closes, I'd be happy to offer further review.


 * I made my assessment based on my own reading of the article, as well as the concerns raised by other editors above. While some of your edits have certainly improved the article, I'm not comfortable reconsidering my opposition at this stage. Other changes made have merely substituted weak writing with other weak writing. There have been substantive changes to the article's content over the course of this FAC, and a recommendation from another editor that more copy-editing is necessary. I'll leave it up to the coordinators to weigh my oppose in context with the other comments (including supports) above. —  CR 4 ZE (T &bull; C)  15:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd assume with FACs, you really don't have that much room for conflicting styles in editing. If you wish to help get this article after the FAC, that'd be great. I'm honestly burned out after every FAC. Even trying to get GA was hard. And most of my articles arent that difficult to get them to GA.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Sadly there is a gulf between what is needed for GAN and that for FAC. It is a pity that MilHist seems to be the only project with an active and functional A class review process. Blue Pumpkin Pie did you follow the advice at the head of the FAC oage? "Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination." (Emphasis in original.) In any event, after two months this has had a lot of work done on it and shows no sign of garnering a clear consensus for promotion, so I am archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2022 (UTC)