Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Portal (video game)


 * 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 16:00, 27 February 2008.

Portal (video game)


Self-nomination The article has passed GA, and has had a peer review, and feel that those that have helped edited it have made it a high-quality article. M ASEM 04:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Article has good content, plenty of supporting facts and references, and seems to be on track thoughout. Happy Editing,  D u s t i talk 17:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The opening sentence of the third paragraph is horribly clumsy and confusing. Please do not let this terrible writing into a featured article. (This is probably not the proper place to post this comment). --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Corrected. --M ASEM 13:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Everything flows, but I question why Aperture Science needs its own long, unsourced section. David Fuchs ( talk ) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it because its unsourced, or that it's just long, that is a problem? I don't want to crystal-ball its importance though gamer speculation says it will come up in Half-Life 2 Episode 3, but compared to, say, Black Mesa Research Facility or City 17 (which yes, are not good examples), this is rather tame, but if you feel it needs to be cut down in length, I think it can be; sourcing should not be a problem if that's the issue. --M ASEM  23:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a little of both. While it's certainly better in the article than in a crufty article like the above, I feel like it makes more sense to just discuss it in the context of the setting and relevant details without going into minute detail or speculation. Perhaps make it into the setting before the characters and plot? David Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've swapped that section around a bit (setting before plot) and I agree that works a bit better, I think more can be cut from the ApSci section if it still feels heavy weight. --M ASEM 03:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it looks a lot better. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 04:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment criterion 3 concerns:
 * WP:NFCC#3B: Image:Portal_Game.svg‎, Image:Portal (video game logo).svg and Image:Portal Chell.jpg are not low resolution, contrary to fair use assertions. Further, Image:Portal_Game.svg‎ and Image:Portal (video game logo).svg have redundant content.
 * NFCC#8 states “Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Image:Portal_Game.svg‎ and Image:Portal Chell.jpg do not appear to significantly contribute to our understanding.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the logo and image of Chell for non-free reduction and took out the portal_game.svg image since it duplicates information. I will argue that the image of Chell helps to show what the portal gun, the main characters, and what heel springs are as described in the text. --M ASEM  04:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I agree that Chell is acceptable. I meant Image:Weighted Companion Cube (Portal).png  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 04:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The cube one is a bit more difficult to assess; the fact is that the cube is one of the more popular aspects of the game (described in the reception section), but the only other image of it, in the top screenshot makes it difficult to judge what it looks like (it is described in text up in the story section, but as there's already images there, it makes it a little image tight). I do see where the suggestion of it being extraneous is coming from as well, so the question is, can this be corrected by adding some text to the article to support it better, or another solution besides just removing the image. --M ASEM  15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the question is, do we have a significantly better understanding of Portal by seeing the cube? I don’t think we’re there yet, but I do agree that it’s a close call.  The other question raised by the prose, however, is that of replaceability (NFCC#1).  If this object has plush, cakes, pc mods, etc., those could be free alternatives; we can only employ fair use if non-free images are reasonably expected not to exist.  These items – especially, say, cake – could be significantly different as not to constitute derivative works (as a contemporary example, Blue’s Clues, also up for FA, uses plush characters).  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 15:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent point; if a fan-created version of the Cube can be considered as the free alternative, then that makes sense, I'll see if I can get one of the user-creators to post a picture to commons. --M ASEM 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And as an aside, I've been told (per Crazy Taxi (series) that user-created photos of copyrighted toys (those made by the copyright holder) are not free, as they are 2D derivative works of a "sculpture", thus the Blue's Clues plush (which is not clear if they are made by the user, or purchased) picture may truly not be free. If I'm mistaken, I know people that have the store-bought Valve plush that can be included as a commons picture, but if not I would resort to a picture of one of the user-creations.  (Of course, since the cube isn't a physical object, it's hard to say if that's a sculpture or not, I'd just rather make sure on the appropriate licensing here). --M ASEM  16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think Blue’s Clues is questionable. I should have explicitly indicated that I mentioned it as possible precedent, not as known acceptable use; I apologize for not articulating that well.  Note, however, my intentional use of “could” in my previous comments, as opposed to, say, “would”.  I’m going to read through the copyright law and see whether I can determine what we could use for an alternative.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 16:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The image Image:Bill Gates Master Chief.jpg was used when Halo (video game) was up on the main page as TFA (this after it was determined that no non-free images can be used for the main page), with the image blessed by User:CO, though noted that you can't copyright clothing and a costume would count as that. This, of course, would be different.
 * Regardless, even if it ends up being non-free, I think replacing the non-free computer-generated picture of the Cube with a (possibly non-free) user-photoed, real-world creation as to match that section (the fact there is user-generated content and/or mechandise) would be much better to match what is being discussed per your comments, so I am pursuing that aspect. --M ASEM 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support per my (hopefully helpful) GA review of this article. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 07:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe Image:Aperture Science.svg is incorrectly tagged and is actually a copyrighted image. And as a non-free image, I don't think it meets WP:NFCC#8 - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - kollision (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree on the #8 - though I do know that Valve created "Aperture Science" merchandise as well, so like the Cube picture, this may be (maybe free replaceable) with a single photo of various Portal merchandise that would serve multiple purposes. I've taken the image out for now. --M ASEM  22:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn’t comment on this image because, being entirely unfamiliar with these games, I didn’t know whether it was from a fan-created add-on. If it’s from the software company, however, it certainly has all sorts of issues.  Unlike the creation of 3D object with utility value (which may legitimize one of the aforementioned cube uses), a logo appearing on merchandise would constitute a derivative work and not be viable.  ЭLСОВВОLД  talk 22:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments: - Quite a good read. It is pretty comprehensive and well sourced, though a few issues stood out at me while reading.
 * In the "Gameplay" section, the sentence "This allows the player character to launch objects, or even herself, over great distances..." seems a bit off since this is the first time the character's gender is brought up. Also it is rewritten from a viewpoint that suggests the player-character is in control of the action, rather than the player. Perhaps "This allows the player to launch objects, or even the character, over great distances..."
 * In the "Setting" section, I think "Aperture Science Laboratories" should not be bolded per the MoS.
 * The "Characters" and "Setting" sections could use some more citations, just for good measure. I'm sure this could be done from either the current sources or even the game.
 * In the "Story" section, the phrase "victory candescence" is wikilinked to Incineration. This might be confusing to a general reader. I would maybe reword the sentence to be less in-universe.
 * This appears to already have been discussed above, but the image in "Critical reception" seems a bit out of place. I get the connection with the user created and official products, but I think a picture of an actual product would be better here (not that big of deal though).
 * I would also recommend a table of review scores using Template:VG Reviews to help give an overview of the critical reception. Also not that big of a deal, but I think it would add to the section.
 * The "Soundtrack" section seems a bit sparse in comparison to the other sections. Maybe the content should be integrated into the "Development" section along with the info on the closing credits.
 * Some references are missing some information, like publisher, accessdate, publication date, and/or author. Ones that come to mind are are ref 1, 2, 3, 6, 20, 32, and 45.
 * Ref 61 brings up a retrieval error and may have been moved.
 * All in all, it's close to FA and is a good article. I think most of these issues are minor and once addressed, I'll be happy to support the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I've addressed all of the above save for citing more Character and Setting lines, getting the right ref info for the Portal commentary, and then the Cube picture (moving the section on Valve merchandise up to Development makes it very clear that this should be replaced with an official product picture, even if it's still non-free.) --M ASEM  23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dang Masem, you can be as fast as lightning. I'll check back tomorrow on the rest of it. Mind if I do some light copy editing to tweak some possible in-universe wording after you're done? (Guyinblack25 talk 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Be my guest. --M ASEM 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I've addressed the remaining issues. I will also note I have replaced the cube image with a picture of the Cube fuzzy dice (still non-free, but better justified for the topic at hand. --M ASEM  20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: - My concerns have been address. I believe it meets FA criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

Notes: Please explain the reliability of this source:
 * ^ Polokov, Kadayi (October 16, 2006). Untitled email from Portal developer. Retrieved on November 27, 2006.

Also, review WP:PUNC throughout: ... that he "[could not] think of any criticism for [Portal]," ... Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed that reference and the statement that was being supported by it (Chell being alive at the end). Being a forum post reporting on an email convo, even with the email writer being appropriate (one of the game developers) doesn't make it reliable, and the fact that it was trying to support is not critical to the article's understanding, nor could I find a better corroborating source.  I've gone through and corrected what punctuation issues I could find. --M ASEM  00:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Masem. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Support Cyger (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.