Wikipedia:Featured article review/Donkey Kong (arcade game)/archive1


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

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 8:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

Donkey Kong (video game)

 * WP:URFA nomination. Notified: WikiProject Video games. Original nominator retired in 2008.

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over 10 years since its last review and there are concerns about its accuracy and comprehensiveness at Talk:Donkey Kong (video game). DrKay (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * References
 * Ref 5 (Chris Crawford) needs a page number.
 * Ref 6 (Space Panic) needs to be finished (author, accessdate, etc.)
 * Ref 9 (John Sellers) needs page numbers.
 * Ref 10 (De Maria) needs page numbers.
 * Ref 11 needs timestamps or other reference to indicate where in the film these points are stated.
 * Ref 13 (Sheri Graner) needs page numbers.
 * Refs 16 and 17 (Commerce Clearing and Game Developer Research) are incomplete.
 * Ref 18 has a page needed tag.
 * Ref 20 (Sheff) needs page numbers.
 * Ref 25 (Nikkei) is incomplete.
 * Refs 30 and 31 are unofficial YouTube uploads of commercials and thus not reputable.
 * Ref 66 is also a YouTube upload.
 * Ref 69 is incomplete.
 * And so on; I didn't pick through every source.
 * The four books cited at the bottom (Consalvo, Fox, Mingo, Schodt) are cited in the footnotes, but do not appear to be used in the article. Why are they here?


 * Content
 * Under "Ports": the paragraph beginning "in 1983, Atari released several computer versions..." is unsourced, as is the one under it.
 * "Both Donkey Kong and its sequel, Donkey Kong Jr., are included in the 1988 NES compilation Donkey Kong Classics." -- unsourced
 * "Game Boy" header is unsourced.
 * "Licensing" is unsourced and still had a pothole to 1982 in video gaming, which is something I thought we stopped doing years ago.
 * "In popular culture" is very vague -- says various other sources have referenced the game but doesn't go into detail, and is also unsourced.

tl;dr: the article does need a massive overhaul. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

John M Wolfson Just a basic run through the lead: I'm sure I'll come up with more throughout the body, but this does need some work. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC) EDIT: Additionally, originally named Mr. Video appears nowhere else in the article and is uncited. I'll have to look at more stuff later. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Donkey Kong is one of the most important games from the golden age of arcade video games as well as one of the most popular arcade games of all time. seems very PEACOCKy to me, even if it is TRUE (which I don't disbelieve). There should be something like "considered to be..." in there.
 * Although Nintendo's American staff was initially apprehensive, Donkey Kong succeeded commercially... Apprehensive about what? I presume about the release or the game in some fashion, but that should be made more explicit.
 * "licensed" is too common a word to be linked here, IMO, but one could perhaps make an argument to the contrary.
 * "(later Universal Studios)" is irrelevant and shouldn't be there.


 * Maybe, who got some other Donkey Kong games promoted, would want to look over this? The issues seem to be solvable, much of it is just formatting. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ty Wouldn't be able to get to this for a while though czar  19:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include referencing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Casliber (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delist. Issues unaddressed. DrKay (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delist. In addition to the other issues brought up that remain unaddressed, Fox and Consalvo need ISBNs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.