Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay/archive2


 * 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 SandyGeorgia 20:06, 30 January 2010.

The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay

 * Nominator(s): GamerPro64 (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that the two weeks over due to, in my opinion, a premature closing, I hope that I can get a support or more comments this time. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The technicals still look good from last time. It looked like you were expanding the article with new sources, but I agree that 11 days seems a little fast (recent reviews have gotten far more time, not that they matter). Maybe Karanacs could explain further? --an odd name 02:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't speak for anyone, but it looks to me from the first nomination that reviewers stated the article needed to be expanded with additional research and sources. That's not the kind of thing we do during an FAC run, and it's best to archive and come back when the article has been properly prepared. What work has been done since the last one closed? From the look of it, not much other than removing about.com and adding a blurb from a different source. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no set timing for FAC reviews; timing is determined by delegates and depends on the issues presented (see the FAC instructions). If issues from the last FAC have not been addressed, this FAC should be withdrawn until they have.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, as User:JimmyBlackwing said on my talk page about his suggestions on the last PR, "I found several of them too vague to understand, and he didn't clarify the prose-related points when I asked him to." What I mean is that he wasn't really explaining to me on how to fix the problems. Also, see the Peer Review on what I mean. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. I'm just speculating on why the first nom was closed since you seemed miffed by it. Take or leave my comments as you see fit, and good luck! -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  03:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I do not believe that there was any major opposition during the previous FAC; it was simply closed (perhaps due to a lack of commentary) much faster than most nominations. In my opinion, the issues raised there were too minor and too few to warrant a speedy closure of this nomination. I also think that the quality of the article is high enough that any more lower-level tests--like peer review--will prove unhelpful. What will take this article through the last few steps, the steps that separate good work from our "best work", is, as usual, the rigorous FAC precedure. Therefore, this nomination should be left open, so that a more thorough analysis of the article can take place. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Was Fuchs' comment about the need to add material from additional sources addressed? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually. I added one of the references he provided me in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then this FAC should be good to go again. Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment – this article is a sea of footnotes and bluelinks, making it difficult to read. I'm not sure why a single sentence needs four citations. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand this comment. Should I remove some references or something like that? GamerPro64 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there superfluous ones that can be removed without harm? If so, yes, that would be good. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed a few references. Does the article look better? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Concern over 1(b) comprehensiveness and 1(c) well researched: I am not one to demand exclusive dead-tree sources (if a reliable web-based source supplies the same or more information, use it), but a Google Book search shows reviews from Maximum PC and GameAxis that are not used (if they have nothing to offer, then fine...); there are also a few books excluded from the article. These publications discussed the game, its technical aspects, or Van Diesel's espousement of it. Furthermore, Billboard (Oct 23, 2004) announced NPD's August 2004 sales figure of 159,000 for the game. Professor of Reading John Paul Gee's "Pleasure, Learning, Video Games, and Life: The Projective Stance" (HTML version) discusses a fair bit on the relation of the protagonist and the player (comparing with Garrett of Thief and Full Spectrum Warrior's nameless soldier). His "What Would a State of the Art Instructional Video Game Look Like?" describes the character of Riddick as a "tough guy prison escapee" and associate some form of professional trait to it (albeit all these in a few lines). Gee's papers are cited by several others and published in scholarly journals. It seems the article has overlooked these sources; I fail to see their information in it. Jappalang (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added one of the books onto the article and will add some more. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments: I was asked to review this a little while back. Here's an overview:
 * Three images—two are fairuse, one is free-use. Excellent alt texts on all of them. The FU screencap, though could do with a better rationale. Perhaps expand on what kind of gameplay it illustrates?
 * Prose nice; nice and to-the-point plot summary as well, I might add. It also holds up structurally and (though I'm unfamiliar with the topic) abides by guidelines from WP:VG/MOS.
 * Finally, the references and citations seem reliable, but an expansion with the print media Jappalang cited above with be greatly helpful.

 The Flash  {talk} 02:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick comment – In the first quote box, the reference provided isn't showing up on the page. Not sure why (maybe it's the pipe after Stevens' name), but please play around with it and see if it can be fixed.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 04:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Source comment I'm deferring to Jappalang and until the comprehensiveness is sorted before doing a review of the sources present. RB88 (T) 12:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.