Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Video Game/archive1


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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC).

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Video Game

 * Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Something for the gaymers now that Pride Month is right around the corner. For anyone unfamiliar, the GLAAD Media Awards are an award ceremony that recognizes various forms of media for their excellent representation of the LGBT community. There are 4 core criteria, but each category is specialized with further criteria being considered. As indicated by the title, this award focuses on video games. It is one of the most recent categories introduced by GLAAD, having being given only during the last 4 ceremonies.

Much of the work done on this article was based on the comments I received during earlier nominations. Having said that, this page is quite different in some areas, having a "Background" section that the others lack, as well as a "Criticism" section which only one other GLAAD Media Award page has; one that was added after the FLC. And in case anyone is curious about me having two featured lists up for candidacy, I asked PresN about and was told that given the state of the earlier nomination, no issues exist. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * "2021 marks the only instance" - looks a bit weird starting a sentence with what is essentially a number. Any way to reword?
 * Found a way. Hope you like it.
 * "An important criterion is to what extent the LGBT-inclusive is integrated" - "LGBT-inclusive" is functioning as an adjective so doesn't really work without a noun, so suggest adding the word "content" here too
 * Done.
 * "alternate media that are canononical to the game's world" - isn't the word "canonical"? You seem to have one too many "on"s in there......
 * Fixed. Jesus. :/
 * "Since 2021, only video games from major developers and publishers are eligible, although a game from non-major studios and publishers can still be nominated" - then surely a non-major game is still eligible, contradicting the first part?
 * To be completely honest I'm not exactly sure what they fully mean by it either. Maybe that while only games from mainstream companies are eligible for candidacy, GLAAD itself does also keep an eye out for other games, and if an indie one manages to receive enough attention akin to a Triple-A game then it can be deemed as "worthy" to be nominated. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe say "only video games from major developers and publishers are normally eligible" or "only video games from major developers and publishers are eligible as standard" or similar......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Made a few alterations to the sentence. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "for its emphasison mainstream Triple-A video games" - missing gap between two words in there
 * Wonder which ones... Done.
 * "with indie games being better at handling LGBT theme" => "with indie games being better at handling LGBT themes"
 * Done.
 * "In September 2018 GLAAD announced that it introduce a category" => something like "In September 2018 GLAAD announced that it would introduce a category"
 * Reworded it.
 * "Owen S. Good lamented that given the awards eligibility criteria, indie games inclusive" => "Owen S. Good lamented that, given the awards' eligibility criteria, indie games inclusive"
 * Done.
 * "couldn't be nominated" => "could not be nominated"
 * Done.
 * "pointing out that all optional love interests [...] doesn't offer" - doesn't work grammatically, think the second verb should have a different subject that's been omitted
 * You're right. Rereading the sentence a few words were clearly missing. I also made a few additonal changes to ensure the word game isn't repeated twice in close proximity to one another, and omitted the contraction.
 * "Imogen Beckhelling also of Rock Paper Shotgun, would go on" => "Imogen Beckhelling, also of Rock Paper Shotgun, would go on"
 * Done.
 * "arguing that it's still" => "arguing that it was still"
 * Done.
 * "she recognized that progress isn't a linear process" => "she recognized that progress is not a linear process"
 * Done.
 * That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis
Hope I won't screw this up Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco between" — commas → semi-colons, as commas may imply NYC is in LA
 * Done.
 * "GLAAD monitors mainstream media to identify which video games will be nominated, while also issuing a Call for Entries that encourages media outlets to submit games for consideration. Video games created by and for an LGBT audience must be submitted in order to be considered for nomination, as GLAAD does not monitor such works for defamation." — I'm just really confused; if games need to be submitted to be considered then what is the point of monitoring the media?
 * Given that GLAAD believes in representation being capable of affecting positive changes to society, and one of the core four criteria being "significant 'Impact' on mainstream culture", it's clear that the organization favours mainstream works as those reach the largest possible audience. Ergo, also affecting the most amount of people with their positive representation. GLAAD monitors mainstream developers and publishers to see which games they publish, if any of them contain LGBT characters / themses, and then decide if they're put up for candidacy or not. Indie developers and studios are not monitored by them, which is why those have to be submitted. I'm guessing it's very likely for a mainstream game that GLAAD was already on the look-out for was also submitted by the developers/publishers. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "games being better at handling LGBT themes and more deserving of recognition" — WP:VOICE
 * "regard to LGBT representation in mainstream games, in relation to mainstream games being nominated or winning, has been described as something" — bit clunky
 * "given to 5 video games" → given to five video games (MOS:SPELL09)
 * Done.
 * "In January 2019, following the announcement of the inaugural Outstanding Video Game nominees, GLAAD released a statement regarding the inclusion of Assassin's Creed Odyssey. The game's Legacy of the First Blade downloadable content attracted controversy for featuring a storyline placing the player character Alexios or Kassandra in an unavoidable heterosexual relationship that results in an offspring." — what was this statement... or is the second sentence the statement? Pretty unclear to me
 * I have changed the structure a little bit. Rereading it, I can understand the confusion. I hope now it's more understandable.
 * "While GLAAD's Blair Durkee, Associate Director of Gaming, also criticized the storyline for "send[ing] the harmful message that sexual orientation can be changed at will and that LGBTQ people can choose to conform to heteronormative expectations in spite of their identities",[10] she defended the nomination of Assassin's Creed Odyssey, acknowledging that progress can be complicated and that to "encourage developers and publishers to continue to make these types of bold moves in the future, we must allow for growth, acknowledge that missteps do occur, and give proper credit where credit is due"." — very long one-sentence paragraph...
 * Changed.
 * "given the awards eligibility" → given the award's eligibility
 * Done.
 * "fact, 'outstanding'" → fact, 'outstanding' "
 * Done.
 * "in relation to mainstream games being nominated or winning, has been described as something that should be acknowledged and celebrated" — this is really explicitly mentioned in only one source in the Criticism section...
 * Thank you for the comments. Things are coming up, so I might be a little slow in responding. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Pamzeis (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM
I"m a little concerned that this seems better suited to a GAN than FLC as there have only been four winners of this award and we normally work on an unwritten rule of around ten. I'm not going to oppose based on that, but thought I should bring it up to remain consistent and fair to other nominations which have failed for the same reason.  Other comments: The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Lead is too long, five paras is way too much per MOS:LEAD.
 * Having looked at a few other articles that are featured articles / lists, I wouldn't say the leade is that long. If the issue is paragraphs, I could combine the first and second ones. Alternatively, if the issue of size remains, I can remove the information about the criticism the award has received and unite the last sentence with the previous paragraph.
 * There appears to be stuff in the lead which isn't expanded upon in the subsequent sections. This isn't normally a major problem for a genuine list article but here perhaps it's anomalous, e.g. "games from major developers and publishers are eligible" (what's a "major" dev btw?) is not really mentioned in the main part of the article.
 * No need to split into decades, it won't become unmanageably large for a few years yet!
 * True. Changed it.
 * How did Overwatch get into the 2020 awards when it was released four years prior? I guess it was for the Switch release, but that needs to be noted.
 * That's actually brought up in the lead; mostly. A video game that was released outside the eligibility period can still be nominated "if substantial new first-party content is released during the eligibility period". Specifically, if you go to GLAAD's website it states: "If released prior to January 1, 2019, the video game must contain substantial new first-party content publicly released for the game between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, where the new content is the subject of consideration". In January 2019, Blizzard published an in-game short story revealing that Soldier 76 is gay.
 * I was wondering if my explanation and everything makes sense. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ref 3 and 4 need spaced hyphens to become spaced en-dashes.
 * Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I was wondering if you could archive these nomination. It's been near three months since this candidacy begun, and it only got three interactions, all within the first month only. The fact that The Rambling Man hasn't been answering back isn't helping move anything along either. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll do you one better, and just promote this. -- Pres N  14:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


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