Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rare Replay/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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2016.

Rare Replay

 * Nominator(s): czar  23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

With a month to go, we are approaching the first anniversary of this compilation of 30 video games by Rare and its predecessor, Ultimate Play the Game. If you're a FAC regular, you might already know that a few of us have been working to improve each of these 31 articles as a Good Topic set, and now that (1) they're all at GAN and (2) we're in the home stretch, I thought it would be nice to try to put a crown on the parent topic in time for its first anniversary on August 4, 2016. Maybe you'll agree?

The compilation of 30 games span a 30-year history across consoles from the ZX Spectrum to the Xbox 360. They include 80s classics that defined an era of British gaming (Knight Lore, FA), 90s classics that characterized the Nintendo 64 (Banjo-Kazooie, Blast Corps, FA), and, well, some weirder variations in the 00s (Viva Piñata). The compilation was fairly well regarded with many reviewers waxing poetic on their youth. But they also agreed that the games weren't all great, which we can affirm after suffering through writing their reception. But this is a homecoming and this parent article is in great shape, with thorough prose as the most complete treatment of the topic in its short life. I look forward to your feedback. czar 23:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Caeciliusinhorto
A few comments to get you started:
 * Lead
 * The lead links to behind-the-scenes, which is a disambiguation page. It looks like of the articles linked, Making-of is the closest, but I don't know that it's quite right.
 * "Rare's Nintendo 64 classics, with Blast Corps in particular, were the communal favorites" I'm not entirely sure what "communal favourites" is intended to mean in this context.
 * " New apogee" sounds odd to me: why not just "apogee"? Actually, why not scrap apogee and just say "high point"?  "Apogee" is a needlessly obscure word, especially for an article likely to be of interest to a wide range of ages and reading abilities.
 * I don't think that "apogee" is needlessly obscure, but I hope a switch to "pinnacle" will suffice—"high point" doesn't really fit the context. (For context, it was high-water mark earlier, but I thought that was, to borrow the phrase, needlessly obscure.)
 * Personally, I would consider "high-water mark" much more understandable than "apogee" to the average reader, but I think "pinnacle" is fine.


 * "Reviewers were disappointed by the absence of...": I'd say "Many reviewers" or "Most reviewers", since it soon becomes clear that a minority were not disappointed.
 * Gameplay
 * "Grabbed by the Ghoulies, in specific, was ported to run natively on the Xbox One, receiving a high-definition and framerate update." I'm not sure what is intended by "in specific" here, but something needs to be fixed. Probably you can just cut "in specific" so that the sentence reads "Grabbed by the Ghoulies was ported to run natively on the Xbox One, receiving a high-definition and framerate update."
 * The idea was to call attention to it being the only game to receive this treatment
 * Perhaps "One title, Grabbed by the Ghoulies, was ported to run natively on the Xbox One"?


 * Although on that same sentence, "receiving a high-definition and framerate update" reads as jargony.
 * What would you propose? This is the non-jargon version.
 * Unfortunately, I can't think of anything. Leave it as it is for now unless someone can come up with anything better, I suppose.

Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to finish giving the section on reception a thorough read; hopefully I'll be able to come back to that soon. You should have plenty to get started on, though... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Development
 * "They figured that few companies lasted for 30 years": too colloquial. Maybe "As few companies last for 30 years, Rare wanted to do something unique to celebrate".
 * And on that point, the interview this is cited to says "studios", not "companies". It looks to me like the intended meaning is that few games companies have lasted that long, but the article implies that it means companies in general, where 30 years isn't hugely impressive: Wedgwood have been around 350+ years, Twinings 310 years, Colman's over 200 years, Cadbury almost 200 years.  Even in the entertainment industry, Warner Bros. are approaching 100 years, as are Disney and HMV; while Virgin is approaching 50.
 * "Rare Replay's papercraft, theatrical stage theme was intended as part of the celebratory theme, and as a reflection of Rare's character" I don't really understand this sentence.
 * "Rare Replay became part of Rare's plan to celebrate its past and simultaneously announce its future with a logo redesign, new website, and Sea of Thieves announcement.": repetition "announce... announcement". Also, maybe explain what "Sea of Thieves" is and what about it was announced in the article?
 * "The company wrote the titles on a whiteboard and rated each for how it would fit the collection." Okay, but is this really needed? I'd cut it, frankly.
 * "which was their explanation for excluding GoldenEye 007" but we've already been told (twice!) that GoldenEye wasn't included because they couldn't sort the licensing out!
 * "The final opening was intended to invoke players' memories": I am almost certain that "evoke", not "invoke", is intended here.
 * "alongside their new game Sea of Thieves." This is the second time Sea of Thieves has been mentioned, it doesn't need to be linked again. And per my above comment, the fact that it was Rare's new game should probably be moved up to go with the previous mention.
 * Reception
 * "It reached the top of the United Kingdom all-format games charts, the first Xbox One exclusive to do so and Rare's first in 17 years (since Banjo-Kazooie in 1998)." Personally, I would rewrite this as "... the first Xbox One exclusive to do so, and the first of Rare's games to do so since Banjo-Kazooie in 1998."
 * , really helpful—thanks! I think I got 'em all czar  13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * a few more picky things:
 * "retains the 'authentic' graphical slowdown": possibly explain briefly what this means? I've skimmed the article on the ZX Spectrum and I'm none-the-wiser. (Reading the source article, it appears that what is meant is that the framerate changes depending on how much stuff is going on onscreen, but at least to this non-gamer that is by no means obvious from the article...)
 * The article cites the Kotaku Review of Rare Replay as support for Jet Force Gemini being both a most and a least favourite game; I really don't see how it supports the claim that JFG was a favourite game.
 * Yeah, this was a weird one. He said that he had a positive impression of the game apart from his issue with the controls, and that the controls issue was amicable resolved. I had covered the controls issue later in the paragraph but wanted to note the game's overall reception alongside the others. I struck that first mention for now as being less important overall, considering the section's length.
 * I don't think that the article needs to remind us who the reviewer wrote for every time they are mentioned: the worst offender is the construction "Machkovech (Ars Technica)" appearing four times in two consecutive paragraphs.
 * "While Eurogamer liked how the Spectrum emulated the graphical glitches of the original console, Ars Technica disagreed." I'm not sure how much I like this kind of construction: is the reviewer not giving their personal opinion rather than speaking for the publication as a whole?
 * These last two are an ongoing struggle. Some FAC reviewers insist on attributing the statements of the review to the writer rather than to the website (i.e., use the source as a metonym). I personally find review sections wholly unhelpful when they do this, as it's much easier for the reader to mentally juggle the publications for whom the reviewers speak than whoever happens to be the human reviewing that day. Otherwise the reader has to track five or more forgettable names that they might never see again after this paragraph (names that are really inconsequential to understanding the topic). I provide both to satisfy both needs, even though I think this is clunkier than, say, just avoiding the author's name after the first usage. While Machkovech wasn't paired with his website four times as far as I can tell, I reduced the most to two. What's your take? Got the rest.  czar  16:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't think it particularly matters whether you cite the reviewers as $NAME or as "the reviewer for $PUBLICATION"; I just dislike the "$NAME ($PUBLICATION)" format. I think you've got the rest. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , all right, I've given the Reception another general round of edits to reduce the parentheses, per your wishes, but if you are opposed altogether I recommend seeing the discussions for prior FACs such as Blast Corps and Killer Instinct Gold in which the parentheses were an acceptable compromise. Again, I personally prefer using just the $PUBLICATION to ascribe the views, as the singular review is known as the publication's and not as the author's, though I think it's fine to add the author when needed for grammatical concerns. czar  20:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte

 * Would it be a better idea to reword "but an inevitable absence due to licensing issues" (Reception, third paragraph, first sentence) to "but were absent due to licensing issues"?  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   12:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd want to preserve the sentiment that they both didn't like the circumstances and acknowledged that there was little to do about them. (I don't want to pummel the reader with reminders about the licensing, but it was a major point, so I want to make sure its handling by reviewers is in full context.) czar  13:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Support: The article exemplifies how a compilation game should be made. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Famous Hobo
Alright, I'll take a look at this article. As someone who's currently sitting at 252/330 stamps in this game, I feel as though I'm obliged to review this article.

Lead
 * No real concerns here, very good job at summarizing the major points. I do wonder about this line however: "Reviewers noted that Rare's founders, the Stamper brothers, were conspicuously absent from the interviews." All of the other sentences about the reception are justified, but since in the actual reception section, you only have one sentence on the absence of the brothers. I wouldn't mind seeing this sentence removed from the lead, since it's already short enough in the reception section.

Gameplay
 * The 30 games span multiple genres, including fighting, first-person shooter, gardening, mining, 3D platforming, racing, and skiing. Gardening and mining are not video game genres. The reference used states that there are games in the compilation centered around gardening and mining, but not that they're the genres. I would remove those two. Also, link fighting game
 * The Xbox 360 games share player saved game and Achievement progress between the consoles via Xbox Live's cloud sync features. Wouldn't it be better to link to Achievement (video gaming)?
 * This unreleased sequel to Kameo was designed with a darker tone than the original. Link Kameo
 * Rare also worked on The Fast and the Furriest, a spiritual successor to Diddy Kong Racing with vehicle customization and track alterations. Rare also began work on new intellectual properties including survival game prototype Sundown and the airplane-based Tailwind. The videos also include trivia behind some game design decisions... Another minor complaint, but I don't like seeing "also" used as the second word for three straight sentences. Try to reword one or two of these sentences without "also"

Development
 * The servers behind some Rare Xbox 360 game functions like piñata, blueprint, and photo sharing were turned offline prior to Rare Replay and thus were not included. I have no idea what "piñata, blueprint, and photo sharing" are supposed to mean. There's no context for what each function is or what games they're from, so it might be best just to remove that part entirely. The sentence still works as "The servers behind some Rare Xbox 360 game functions were turned offline prior to Rare Replay and thus were not included."
 * Rare did not plan downloadable content in advance,[15] but has stated that it would consider the idea.[19] This sentence should be update, as Rare officially announced no DLC for this game back in January

Reception
 * Least favorites included Perfect Dark Zero,[2][22][24][33] Grabbed by the Ghoulies,[3][24] Snake Rattle & Roll,[25] and the early Spectrum games, which reviewers felt had aged the worst.[3][23] Link Snake Rattle & Roll
 * Critics supported the compilation's choice of the Nintendo 64 version of Conker's Bad Fur Day over its updated yet censored Xbox re-release.[2] There is only one critic listed as liking that decision. Instead of saying multiple critics, say Machkovech

References
 * The refs are a bit off in terms of whether they just want the original website, or a publisher as well. For example, ref 1 just states Polygon, while ref 2 states Ars Techia and Conde Nast. Please choose one of the two (unless it's an independent website like Rare Gamer, in which case that's fine)
 * Ref 12, 18, and 19 are missing the date
 * Would it be possible to avoid using a tweet in ref 10? I understand that it's from Rare themselves, but it still seems a bit informal for a featured article to reference a tweet.

Alright, that's all I have to say. This article is definitely well written, especially the reception section. Seriously, in my opinion, that is the best written reception section I've read in an video game article. Once all of the lingering issues are addressed, I'll easily support. BTW, would you mind continuing with the Virtue's Last Reward FAC?
 * Thanks, . I'm not wedded to including the Stampers mention in the lede, but enough reviewers specifically called it out that I felt it was a particularly important highlight. I think I got the rest, if you'll take a look. I'm a bit tied up now off-wiki, but I'd be happy to take a look at other FACs once that subsides (might need a reminder though) czar  07:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , in case you didn't see the ping czar  04:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmm, sorry for missing the ping. Anyway, I feel this meets the FA criteria now, so I'm good with giving it a Support. Also, just wanted to remind you about possibly reviewing my FAC. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie
I'll add comments as I go through; should be able to finish tonight or tomorrow morning. If I mess anything up in a copyedit, please feel free to revert. Overall I think this is in pretty good shape; I think the prose is a little flat in places and will try to do a copyedit pass once the minor points above are addressed.
 * "and the idea to connect Rare's past and future": how about "the idea of connecting"? "idea to connect" isn't very natural.
 * "Rare's Nintendo 64 classics, with Blast Corps in particular, were communal favorites among reviewers": suggest "Rare's Nintendo 64 classics, and Blast Corps in particular, were among the reviewers' favorites". I don't think "communal" means quite mean what you want it to mean, but in any case it doesn't add much and I think can be cut.
 * If "playlist" doesn't have a special meaning in gaming, I would unlink it.
 * Is everything after "Rare Revealed unveils gameplay footage from several unreleased games" about unreleased games? For example, I can't tell if Black Widow was ever released, and I think The Fast and the Furriest was not released but can't be certain.
 * "Alternatively, Jeremy Parish..." -- I don't think you can use "alternatively" in this way; you just mean "on the other hand", right?
 * "Communal" again in the reception section; is this commonly used in the gamer press? If so, OK, but it sounds odd to me.
 * "He noted how the compilation ends around the time when Rare's founding Stamper brothers left the company": I think "ended" would be more natural.

However, I do think the reception section is clunky. I'm hesitant to oppose on that basis, because I don't think other editors would necessarily agree with me, but I'd like to suggest you take a look at an essay I just drafted earlier today. Some of the issues I comment on in that essay are present here. Paragraph two, for example, has a bit of the "A said B" problem. If you disagree, that's fine, and in that case I'll just run through again and make some specific suggestions that I think might help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the review! I've made the above fixes. If you would prefer, feel free to mark passages inline and I'll return to tweak the prose. I skimmed your essay and have a few immediate reactions, but I'll leave that to its talk page instead of getting off-topic. Remind me if I forget? czar  03:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I've struck everything but the "playlist" point above; any reason not to unlink that in the article? I will read through again, most likely this evening.  By the way, in looking at your last diff, I was interested to see you've put a "scope" comment at the front of each reception paragraph.  I've never seen that done before but I think it's an excellent idea, and I'm going to recommend it in the essay.  Is it your own idea, or did you see someone else doing it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "Playlist" is a loanword in this context (jargon and not traditionally a video game term), so I thought it was appropriate to link. If you think it's too common a term to link, feel free to remove it. I try to add comments in the code as I'm writing if it'll make my intentions clearer to future editors. I've been doing it for a while in complex Reception sections and imagine it was original but no need to attribute the idea in any event. czar  20:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

A couple more quick notes. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In the development section it's made clear that although some games were excluded not because of licensing issues, but because they did not fit Rare's selection criteria, but in the reception section it's asserted that they were excluded for licensing reasons.
 * You have "Ars Technica wrote..." followed by "He felt..."; I'd either give the reviewer's name or use "They felt".
 * What's the intended scope of the "Craft" paragraph in the reception section? Why would "Stephen Totilo (Kotaku) called it the best since Valve's The Orange Box" fit there?
 * Thanks again, . ✓ Done. Rare said that licensing issues were secondary in their selection process, but the unsaid story is likely that Rare would have preferred to include its most popular games and couldn't, for whatever reason, due to licensing. That's my speculation based on the sources, but all I can say without editorializing is that sources were disappointed by "inevitable" licensing issues. So it's not like the sources or Rare is wrong—it's just on the reader to put the two together. The "craft" paragraph is about the compilation's design and the quality of its selections. (It's also a transition into discussing reviewer thoughts on the selection process, which was the bulk of the reviews.) czar  20:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * OK on all the above points. I am going to read through once more for flow before supporting, and if I think I can help with any of the reception section paragraphs I'll post ideas at the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

A couple more items; and I've done a little copyediting -- please revert if needed. -- OK, that really is the last pass. I'll have a go at one of the reception paragraphs next and will post anything I come up with to the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:02, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "similar in function to the NES Remix series": as a non-aficionado I have no idea what this means. If this comment is only useful to readers who already know what it means, perhaps it can be cut?
 * "as was how fun they considered the game": I think this could be rephrased. How about "as was Rare's assessment of how much fun each game was to play"?
 * , second one rephrased, but the first isn't meant for aficionados—I'm unfamiliar with anything more than the basics of the NES Remix series but it's an appropriate comparison as a reviewer-observed precursor for the format. I think it's important for contextualizing the "snapshot" feature, even if most readers will glaze over that addition if they're not interested. I'll take a look at your talk page comments in a bit—are you including those outside the FAC or just wanted more space to stretch out? czar  18:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Support. I think this is FA quality. There's a conversation on the article talk page, and that may end up further improving the article, but if it doesn't I still think this is ready to be promoted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review
I see just one image, but anyway. Non-free image, which is the typical license for boxart of videogames unless they are OTRS-licensed or sometimes free software, and that isn't the case here. File is about the right size to meet WP:NFCC without being unreadable. The detailed (if boilerplate) non-free use rationale satisfies WP:NFCC and seems to explain all other points required (i.e WP:NFCC), and I don't see any violation thereof. The image has alt text, which is coherent with the scope of the image to show the boxart. So I'd say that this file is fine under the featured article criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.