Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate/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 15:51, 13 October 2009.

Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate

 * Nominator(s): –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because... well, because I think that it meets the criteria. :) Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate passed a good article nomination back in June and was featured in DYK earlier that month. I've put a lot of work into the article, and feel that it is ready for this step. A few comments/clarifications for reviewers:

This article was tough to find good images for. Since it doesn't have an actual "box cover", being a download-only game, I just took the "placeholder" box art for use here. I also feel that having one screenshot is justified in most VG articles, and the current one was the most appropriate I could find with relation to the text itself.

The reliability of citations to the Neverwinter Nights 2 Vault has been discussed at Reliable sources/Noticeboard (permalink), with consensus appearing to lean towards its being OK in its current use here. Most other sources are considered reliable per WP:VG/S. Just RPG is not listed there as reliable or unreliable, but I feel that it is reasonable to include because of the amount of time that the site has been around and from looking at some of the site's "about us"-type pages. However, if this last source needs to be removed, I won't object too much; it's only being used in the reviews box as-is anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Initial comments: I'll have to look into the reliability issue later, because it's not just that they be reliable, but that they be high quality... anyhow, I don't see how File:Neverwinter Nights 2- Mysteries of Westgate wererat encounter.jpg meets WP:NFCC and FA image criteria. The graphics aren't the subject of substantial critical commentary in the reception section, and the wererat really isn't that important to understanding the topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:VGIMAGES guideline does say that "Screenshots are great for enhancing the comprehensiveness of articles, and all computer and video game articles should have at least a couple. Do not go overboard, because excessive placement of fair use images has been known to spark controversy and objection, especially with Featured Article candidates." and "Screenshots of video games should be used to identify as many unique or notable elements as possible, and keeping the number of such shots to a minimum." I feel that this particular image illustrates as many notable elements as possible (read: I couldn't find a good screenshot which would illustrate more), and it is only a single image. I feel that there are few cases when more than one screenshot can be well-justified, but a single screenshot to illustrate some gameplay element which is mentioned in the text and to show the game's general graphics passes NFCC. Finally, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and all, but I still think that this is worth mentioning: most VG FAs do have one or two (or more!) screenshots, and (from the ones that I looked at), the rationales on those aren't real grand, either. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * VGIMAGES is, of course, a guideline, which means it's subject to WP:NFCC policy. I'm not disputing that the image shows many different elements, and that's a good thing, but I don't feel it's met the criteria that removing it would be detrimental to our understanding, especially considering the gameplay is referring readers to another larger article anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good points; the reference to the main article does lead to a (better) screenshot of gameplay. I'll remove the screenshot, and look around to see if I can dig up any free image that would make the article look less bare. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Can you comment on your choice of sources in the Reception section? Why have you chosen a Russian language source?  I have nothing against foreign sources, but you've used no actual input from the source other than the score.  The same can be said for some others in the review table.  Does it really add to the reception? - hahnch e n 14:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I found that reception for this game was very limited; these are all the reliable reviews that I could find, presumably because the game is download-only and an expansion pack. The two aggregator sites which are only used in the reviews box are mainly there just so that there is more than one; additionally, the scores are different enough (unlike with most games), that it seems interesting. The Absolute Games review is also used to cite the system requirements (it was actually the only good source there seemed to be on the requirements from a secondary source). The GameStar review is also used in the text of the reception section. The Just RPG score I included mainly so that there were a few more reviews, but the reviewer didn't really say anything significant that wasn't already included in the section, IIRC (although I guess that means that having the review linked is kind of pointless. Hmm...) So I guess that Just RPG could be removed, but all the others seem important to me. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need a secondary source for a requirements reference. The game should provide this.  The only occasion I'd see it being a problem is if the requirements are woefully understated to trap users into buying it. These are just observations, I'm not making a call on the article one way or another. - hahnch e n 21:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've switched to using a primary source (which has different requirements listed, oddly), and have removed the two "extra" reviews from the review box. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments -
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5k2DqIy2k deadlinks
 * The webcitation link is not dead for me. Hekerui (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So now it works (shrugs) The joys of the interwebs. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.gamezone.com/news/05_22_09_12_10PM.htm a reliable source?
 * I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/neverwinter-nights-2-mysteries-of-westgate/review/neverwinter-nights-2-mysteries-of-westgate/a-200906261454724078/g-20090626132523451044 a reliable source (It's the original of the dealink above).
 * This got taken care of at Featured article candidates/Mega Man 2/archive1 Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GameZone is listed at the video game sources guideline as being reliable, specifically citing this evidence for its reliability. It seems to be mostly published by a set of employees, not just any joe off the street, and has also been in existence for 13 years (no small feat for any website, and even more unlikely for one which seems unreliable).
 * GamesRadar is likewise listed at WP:VG/S as a reliable source because it is in the same network as PC Gamer and Computer and Video Games. It is published by Future plc. Discussion of GamesRadar's reliability is located here. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Looks good to me, just a couple of issues:


 * Is the system requirement box necessary? If it is, could it be auto-collapsed?  I personally don't think they're necessary, but I guess other PC FAs would provide a precedent.  Thoughts?


 * Does the ESRB rating in the infobox need an inline? The rest of the infobox does without.


 * Where exactly in Faerûn is Westgate?


 * Who is the player character, and what led them this mask? Where was the mask discovered?

Keep up the good work. — Vantine84 (t – c)   03:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review; I'll work on some of these today. On the system requirements box, a number of VG FAs do have them already, so I was really just following by example (I don't have an opinion one way or another). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be done. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In-game, is the PC's origin intended to be a mystery? — Vantine84 (t – c)   03:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No reliable source indicates what the PC's origin is, and I don't have a copy of the game, but I'd assume that if you import a character then you can just use the same backstory and that you can create a new storyline for new characters, just including the "finding the mask" part. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

-- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Leaning support
 * One pet peeve I have is reception sections that list publications but not critics. It's generally individual critics who review games, not an unnamed staff member, and it's better to credit them since it's their opinions.
 * I feel like there should be more of an attempt to introduce the characters and mechanics, especially as someone who doesn't play D&D and has no idea what anything in it is.
 * I went through and performed a copyedit, you should check my edits.
 * In the lead it says Atari asked Ossian to develop the game, but the body states the reverse.
 * Thanks; I'll fix these up later tonight or tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I got points 1, 3, and 4; 2 may take a little more time, so I'll do that tomorrow. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Did this fix the issue? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better. Two things: 1) the final paragraph of reception isn't a real paragraph and kind of sputters out, and 2) do the present sources also support the clarifications you added? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll work on the final paragraph there. For the clarifications, the sources don't directly support them. However, I feel that the additions are uncontroversial and don't need a direct source. All of them can be sourced to the Dungeons & Dragons core rulebooks, if wanted, but I think that that would be unneeded reference clutter. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I feel like an ogre (ha!) for being nitpicky, but I believe the prose is not up to the FA standard. One major reason is the overabundance of the passive voice. For example: "Characters are moved and commanded with the mouse." To make it active voice (which is preferred), the subject of the sentence should be doing the action. Thus: "The player moves and commands characters with the mouse." This problem shows up in a number of other spots as well. (Also: WP:ELLIPSIS indicates that no brackets are needed around ellipses, except in one rare circumstance.)

Another concern: I haven't done the necessary research, but this statement seems implausible: "Mysteries of Westgate's storyline is unrelated to Neverwinter Nights 2 or its other expansions." Is there really no connection at all? If not, the reader deserves some kind of clarification — why not release it as a separate title? Also, the lead begins by saying it's a computer role-playing game, but then indicates that it's an expansion pack. I don't see how it can be both. (If, as I suspect, the "computer role-playing game" phrase is provided for the purposes of the wikilink, then we can just pipe that link to "computer role-playing" and follow it immediately with "expansion pack".)

The "System Requirements" box seems odd without a colored bar as the header. (It looks like an image was deleted from that space.) Is this standard? Can it be tweaked so that section doesn't look so odd?

The primary editor(s) have clearly done a lot of work on research and composition; this is a good-looking article overall. But I feel that the above work still needs to be done before I can give it my support. (I also wish I had the time and not-being-sick-ness to offer a copyedit of my own, but alas — I do not.) Scartol  •  Tok  16:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review; I will try to work on these issues and I'll leave you a note on your talk page when I think they have been fixed. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * On the statement you asked about, I believe that it is correct. It is sourced, and the very nature of Neverwinter Nights 2 allows it to be expanded upon without connection to the "original" storyline. As an "adventure pack", Westgate is designed to have a stand-alone storyline, whereas the two official "expansion" packs are (IIRC) connected to the main tale. Westgate is unconnected from the main story the same way that all of the user-created levels for NWN2 are. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time today to work more on the active/passive change; I'll try and do the rest tomorrow. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * All of your questions, except for what I mentioned above, has been resolved, I think. I had some trouble with the passive → active change, but I think I got all the spots which stood out to me. If you notice any others, please let me know! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks better, but there are still problems: "the content of these quests depends on which faction was sided with" and "other distributors were added" are two examples that appear at first glance. Other sentences concern me too: "When Miranda was asked why the game was made available only through download, he replied..." Is this necessary? Either we should learn who asked, or just get to the point he was making. Also: "...but it was further delayed. It was finally released..." This repetition isn't too groovy.
 * These are just examples; I think the whole article needs another coat of copyedit paint. I believe you've had an independent copyedit, but I think another is needed. (And again, I wish I had time to offer to do it myself.) Scartol  •  Tok  23:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Image review: Images as of oldid #319252662 are fine. NW ( Talk ) 18:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.