Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metroid Prime 3: Corruption/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:21, 30 May 2008.

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption
I'm nominating this article for featured article because my other FAC has stalled and has not received any new criticism in a few days, and it also has several Support votes and no Opposes. Gary King ( talk ) 01:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have at least four nominations running, and they are all taking large amounts of FAC reviewer resources: please choose two to withdraw. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - As long as this is still here, I support its candidacy. It is stable, comprehensive, has a very full development section, reliable sources, clear images and is well written. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Judgesurreal777. I have helped with copyediting, mainly in the plot section, but I'm impressed with both how quickly and how thoroughly this article came together. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. For my previous Metroid experience, I did some things to help this article (VG assessment, first GA nomination, wrote most of the development, and some overall fixing), and it seems good enough to reach FA level. (and maybe if this passes I'll try to turn Metroid Fusion into a GA...) igordebraga ≠ 19:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, as the article has basic problems with prose (ex. "The game opens with a meeting between Samus, three other bounty hunters, and the Admiral of the Galactic Federation fleet." a few sentences in), in-universe language right in the lead, and game guide language in the Gameplay section. Does not meet 1a and requires a thorough copyedit by an uninvolved editor before closer examination is possible.  Heavy reliance on IGN and other web sources cause balance concerns. -- Laser brain   (talk)  22:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't; using web sources or book sources does not matter as long as they are reliable, and without an assertion that they are unreliable, there is no reason to think using them is a bad thing. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking to reliability, I'm speaking to balance. Web sources are largely written by web editors that have a close interest and a strong POV about the topics.  You need print sources that have an established editorial process to balance that out. I hope this is more clear. -- Laser brain   (talk)  23:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants it, I have access to a ProQuest archives account and can email someone possible print sources to use. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 11:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Laser brain—just to be clear, under which criterion do you oppose due to a large reliance on web-based sources?  Pagra shtak  18:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1d, neutrality. Print sources tend to be more objective because they have an established editorial process. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that MP3 is a pretty new game, and it wasn't the target of nearly the same amount of hype as Halo 3 and Super Smash Bros. Brawl, I doubt it'll be nearly as easy to find non-web sources that fit all the WP:V/WP:RS criteria normally required for Featured Articles. I personally don't see a problem with the majority of its sources being web-based, though I will support balancing out those sources if necessary - if we are relying too heavily on sites like IGN, that can be a problem. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it was quite easy to find non-web sources. Within 30 seconds on Academic Search Premier and InfoTrac OneFile, I found articles from Electronic Gaming Monthly (other than the review you cite), New York Times, Rolling Stone, Daily Variety and others.  These all have established editorial processes and should be preferred sources for attaining balance in the article.  These results show that the article was "web researched" which is quite prevalent in pop culture articles but is not sufficient.  Some leg work through a library is needed. -- Laser brain   (talk)  20:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good, but I would like to see some proof that video game editors are in some way biased in a way the New York Times is not. We have tons of featured articles without "print sources", and unless you can explain your theory in a compelling way, it sounds like a waste of time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, trust me. I just disagree.  Print sources generally have an established editorial process; web sources generally do not.  I am well-accustomed to seeing web sites, especially gaming web sites, flooding writers' job boards with offers to pay per review written and posted to the sites.  I'm sorry but a professional journalist employed at a newspaper or magazine is more objective. -- Laser brain   (talk)  00:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To say that the New York Times is a "objective" newspaper is laughable and an insult to those who value objectivity. At least list a newspaper that is not openly a liberal propaganda organ. I guess we will agree to disagree, though I assume Sandy will side with you. I still think you should have to establish proof because if you can't, its just a well articulated opinion, not a fact.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all opinion, correct. I tend to base my opinions on WP:WIAFA. -- Laser brain   (talk)  01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised you used that argument, the one involving "objectivity", when right in the criteria it says that all significant arguments must be included; that way it makes much more sense to say that the print sources should be included for that reason; I recommend using that argument instead. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Might I just point out that it's both difficult and pointless to try to find a source that is truly objective on a subjective matter. Reviews and reception are, by definition, subjective, so the main defining criterion then should be whether the sites we're quoting from are reliable and representative. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the views on the sources themselves, their use should also be considered. If they are merely verifing simple statements involved in "gameplay" and "development", then I don't see how there could be an opportunity for bias, as that's merely a description of how the game works/was developed. The only problem I could see would be if "reception" was referenced predominantly by IGN, which doesn't seem to be the case here. Saying that, I don't know where KieferSkunk's coming from&mdash;by number of magazines, there would be nearly the same number of published material for the game as there would be for any other game. It should be easy to find some, although I'm not commenting on the rationale for including them as opposed to web sources. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  16:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We can probably just ignore that comment of mine - I think I was more aiming for the idea that I disagree that web sources are any less acceptable than print sources in this field. I was mainly pointing out that MP3 is much newer than, say, FF7 or Pac-Man, so there would likely be less printed material about it to note things like cultural impact, historical influence, etc.  But it's not terribly important - what's more important is that the information we DO have in the article be balanced.  I don't see a problem with what's there now, except for minor wording issues - the article presents a balanced stance on reception, showing both people who liked the game and people who saw flaws in it.  The sources back that up. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 16:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment If everyone doesn't mind, can we switch the conversation to what work needs to be done to get this ready? I'm willing to drop the sourcing issue (for now) but there is still the issue of the prose.  What progress has been made toward finding a non-video game copyeditor? -- Laser brain   (talk)  18:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gameplay should be better now. Gary King ( talk ) 00:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just read the Gameplay...seems quite unpolished. E.g. "The Wii Remote functionality allows players to lock on enemies and targets, and then move around them while simultaneously firing anywhere on the screen" --> Treasure trove of redundancies. Budding Journalist 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some source checking
 * "It was released on August 27, 2007 in North America[1] and on October 26, 2007 in Europe." Both sources were published before the release dates, and were giving expected release dates. Note the disclaimer on one: "Please note that game titles and launch dates are subject to change". References published after the release dates confirming them would be considered more reliable.
 * Page number for "Metroid Prime 3: Corruption Instruction Booklet"?
 * "Nintendo announced that Corruption would not include a multiplayer mode." Source is an interview with the President and CEO of Retro Studios, not some representative of Nintendo. Budding Journalist 02:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the above issues. Gary King ( talk ) 00:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not the first one. Your new source for the NA release date does not say that August 27 was the North American release date. The second citation has not changed. Budding Journalist 00:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose—1a, requirement for professional formatting, referencing. Plus lots more that I haven't picked out. BTW, "9 of 10" in the table: should that be "9 out of 10"? Unsure. Some publications are italic, some roman. Perhaps there's a good reason. TONY  (talk)  10:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gary, much as we've worked together productively at FLC, I think your stated reasons for nominating this article are unacceptable.
 * Where's this "Europe" thing? Please don't use strange, unexplained terms. Ah, there's a bright-blue link to it: thanks, I'll look it up immediately. Same for "North America"—please write for non-experts.
 * "hired to assist the Galactic Federation during their ongoing conflict"—"its", please, not "their". In the subsequent sentence, "their" refers to something else, which is confusing until you go back to disambiguate. Just remove it from the next sentence.
 * Why choose "utilising", one of the ugliest words in the language, over "using"?
 * Another "their defeat"—strike first word.
 * Indoctrinating—another dictionary word that should not be linked. Please audit the whole text.
 * "Additionally"—oh no; what does it add? Isn't every sentence additional to the text?
 * known as Aurora Units, but called "Phazon" (with quotes). Suggest not.
 * "Ridley, a recurring villain"—awkward, isn't it? Recast.
 * Ref 35: how about telling us that it's an audio "review", not written. Requires extra download. I gave up after the first 15 seconds of rubbishy banter between two guys. When does it get to a statement supporting the claim in our text? Not happy with this method of verification.
 * Tony, if I ever return to Wikipedia full-time, it will be because of your wit. Best oppose ever (no offense to the nominator). &mdash; Deckiller 01:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. Hi, it's me again, I am still clueless about most video games, so here goes: Karanacs (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this might benefit from a background section (or something) that would detail a little bit what this game is being based off of.  For example, there are sentences like "Corruption introduces several new gameplay features", which assume I have an idea what the previous gameplay features were (and I don't).  Some of this is in the Setting section under synopsis, but there are still big gaps for people like me.
 * "The vouchers can be sent to friends" - I don't know anything about WiiConnect24, but can this explain, perhaps how you choose the "friends" - do you need an email address, username, etc to know who this goes to or does it just hang out in cyberspace until someone grabs it?
 * Can the comparisons get more detailed here ". It was also slated to have much larger environments than in Echoes and targeted to run at 60 frames per second in the finalized version" - how many frames/second did the last one run and how much larger is the environment
 * I'm a little confused on the timeline here: "The title Corruption and some of the first gameplay footage were first revealed at Nintendo's Media Release at E3 2006. Corruption was slated for the Wii launch in November 2006,[19] but a few months later the game was delayed to 2007" - when was E3 2006? Was the Wii launching in 2006 and Corruption was supposed to launch at the same time? "a few months later " than what?
 * Although the lead states it, in the body of the article it is not made clear that the game is published by Nintendo, although that is implied.
 * Need a citation at the end of each sentence with a quotation, even if the next citation covers that quote (per MOS). See development section and reception for a few issues with this.
 * Is Dragon Ball Z a video game, movie, or cartoon?
 * "this project was only accomplished due to the delay." - does this mean the project of tuning the controller or the project of making the game?
 * "Nintendo of America replied" - a company can't really reply
 * The prose is not horrible, but it is awkward. The prose could easily be tightened by removing some repetition and rewording to be more focused on the meaning.  I'd recommend a copyedit.
 * Hi Karanacs. I'm not going to try to touch on all of your points, but I think your points above that have to do with not knowing the details of "WiiConnect24", "E3 2006", "new gameplay features", "Dragonball Z", etc., fall outside the scope of Featured Article requirements.  It is not up to the Corruption article to describe what Dragonball Z is, or to explain how WiiConnect24 works, or necessarily to give the exact date of E3 2006.  The article has (or should have) wikilinks to the other articles, which the reader can follow to answer those questions if he/she is interested in them. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's definitely not your job to describe in detail. However, brief descriptions are sometimes necessary so that the article is not too jargony.  For example, just adding "the movie" or "the videogame" as a descriptor in front of Dragonball Z would be enough to clarify what it is.  To be an FA, an article should be accessible to someone unfamiliar with the topic, and this article assumes that the reader is very familiar with video games (or at least video games for the Wii).  The jargon needs to be better explained. Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a good example of why I've been requesting a non-gamer copy-edit from the start. Unfortunately, this seems to be a sticking point for more than one video game FAC. -- Laser brain   (talk)  20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.