Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Letterpress (video game)/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 February 2024 [1].

---

Letterpress (video game)

Nominator(s): TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

When hearing the phrase "mobile games", you often think of tawdry knockoffs choked with blatantly inappropriate advertisements. It seems as though good mobile games are of short supply these days. But, looking far enough, past "offline" .io multiplayer games, and Homescapes-esque puzzles, you discover Letterpress, Loren Brichter's beautifully produced word game with a sleak user interface and tactical gameplay. From a simple dinner conversation, this game ended up ranking second place in the App Store's Best of 2012 list for an iPhone game. I'm very proud to nominate Letterpress as my first FA. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

• I have two comments about this sentence: (Some called the graphics "aesthetically pleasing" with "zero clutter."). The first is that quotes should be explicitly attributed in the prose to make it clear to readers who is saying what and the second is that punctuation should be on the outside of quotation marks unless you are pulling a full quote. I would look through the article to see if there are any other instances of either and revise accordingly.
  • Attributed authors. Moved punctuation for quotes.
    • I would avoid the following sentence construction, (with Dellinger saying that the game had "zero clutter"). I have seen repeated notes in FACs to avoid "with X verb-ing". I do not have a strong opinion about it, but I would avoid it. I would revise this one instance, and I would look throughout the article to make sure it is not used elsewhere. Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Does this work?
• I have prose concerns about the following sentence: (After leaving Twitter, Inc. in November 2011, the founder of Atebits 2.0, Loren Brichter, began developing side projects that he had little time to work on before leaving.) It reads rather awkwardly to me, with an example of this being the repetition of the "leaving". I also think the positioning of the descriptive phrase, (the founder of Atebits 2.0), contributes to me finding the prose awkward.
  • Cut "before leaving" and moved appositive to after "Loren Brichter".
• I have a similar prose concern with this sentence: (Brichter formulated the game design from Boggle, color wars, and SpellTower.) The word "formulated" seems off in this context.
  • Does "created" work?
    • I think something like (based the game design on ...) would be better. Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Fixed.
• For the lead's second paragraph, I do not think it is necessary to list the full dates. From the video games that I have looked at, most of them just use the month and the year for release dates. I think these more specific dates are kept for the infobox and the article itself.
  • Changed.
• I would avoid repeating words twice in consecutive sentences, such as "developing"/"developed"/"develop" being used in three sentences in a row in the "Development and release" section.
  • Cut repeating words.
• I am uncertain about the placement of these sentences: (Reviewers found the strategic elements of Letterpress likable. However, some criticized the absence of a single-player mode.) The paragraph goes from an overview of positive reviews right to a negative review and then back to positive reviews in a way that is rather jarring.
  • This better?
    • It does look better. I have never read the "Reception" section super thoroughly so I will give more comments on it after I do that. WP:RECEPTION is a great resource for writing sections like this one as a lot of editors have trouble here, myself included. Aoba47 (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• I have a comment for this part, (and would fit with "word nerds and strategy-oriented thinkers"). I would put the citation at the end of the sentence, not at the end of the quote. The current placement is rather awkward, especially since it cuts off the only remaining word in the sentence, "respectively", in an odd way.
  • Moved citation.
• I would encourage you to integrate the "Awards" subsection into the overall "Reception" section as I do think having such a short subsection of two sentences is really beneficial for readers.
  • Integrated.
• Why is word game put in italics in some of the citation titles? It does not appear to be a part of the actual title. This review consistently just calls it Letterpress and the Google Play just uses Letterpress in the "About this game" section. I could be wrong, but I think the "word game" part is either just used as a descriptor or some sort of metadata tag.
  • Removed as many superfluous italics as I could find.
• For Citation 6, I would more clearly identify that this is a YouTube video in the citation with the via= parameter. I would also more clearly identify the website in Citation 8.
  • Added details.
• Why is a quote pulled out and place in the citation template for Citation 16?
  • Thought it was quite hard to find. The game's barely mentioned in the article, so I decided to put the quote in. Removed.

I hope this review is helpful. I will do a more thorough read-through of the article once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have addressed all your concerns. Gimme whatcha got! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:38, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I will re-read the article sometime over the weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have a comment about this part, (Being critically acclaimed for its design and strategic gameplay). I am not sure if that is really reflected in the article, which does not clearly and explicitly say "critically acclaimed". I could see some readers and reviewers finding that word choice to be too strong or it would need a source to support it. It seems reviewers praised the level design for its simplicity so I think that would be worthwhile to mention in the lead instead for further clarity. The criticism about the lack of a single-player mode should be mentioned in the lead for balance. Aoba47 (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Done.
• I would avoid linking graphics twice. Since the article is quite short, I would avoid linking items twice.
  • Unlinked.
• I would avoid having "criticized" in two sentences in a row as done in the second paragraph of the "Reception" section.
  • Removed repeating word.
• I know other editors disagree with me on this, but I never see the value of putting a rating in the prose as done here, (Rating the game 4.5 out of five stars). This information is already apparent in the table so I just do not think it adds much. However, I fully understand this is a matter of personal preference.
  • I tried adding the review score for another sentence, and it sounded so awkward that I ended up removing it. Cut rating.
    • Thank you for addressing everything so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
• I am not sure "intricate" is necessarily the right word here, (intricate details). I get this is seemingly addressing the "nice touches" the reviewer enjoys, but I think there is a better way to convey this information. I just think of "intricate" as being something more complicated and detailed, and I do not think that really fits here.
  • Does "embellishments" work here, as in "...Friedman noticed and praised the embellishments"?
    • Not really. I get the impression that the reviewer just enjoys the details in the game (like the sound effects) that make it appear more polished and complicate. I would not think of this as either intricate or embellishments as I think it is making sound fancier than it is. I think just dropping "intricate" and keeping "details" by itself would do the trick just fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Cut "intricate".
• It seems that tiles that are surrounded turn a different shade compared to the others. Is that accurate? If so, would it be notable enough to reference in the prose with an appropriate citation?
  • Yes, and I believe there are a few reviews that mention this. Unfortunately, I am sleep deprived and looking at a wall of text for three hours during the night is the last thing I want to do in my life.
    • That's fair. Always good to know when to step away. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Tried this.
• I would expand on this sentence: (Nelson compared it to Clear, a productivity app.) What were these comparisons? Also, is this being positioned as a positive review? If so, it should be made clearer (and no pun intended there).
  • Planning to add an image of Clear if necessary.
    • That would not be necessary. I think it should be more clearly explained in the prose if possible. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    • Just to add on to my point, when I look at the citation, it says the two games both have a "minimalist style and smooth animation" so that would be worth pointing out in the prose. The quote would not be necessary though as you could paraphrase it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
      • Tried this.
        • I am still not sure. I do not think the prose for that sentence is the greatest, and it could benefit from further revision. Aoba47 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
      • I'll try waiting for other reviewers to see what they think. Tried this. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 23:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
        • I would go for something like (Nelson enjoyed the game's "minimalist style and smooth animation", which he compared to the productivity app Clear.) Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
          • Changed.

• It seems that several reviewers specifically mention the game being addictive. I think that might be worthy of highlighting in some sort of topic sentence. My biggest concern for the "Reception" section is that it can come across as quite list-y, such as the second paragraph primarily being individual sentences on individual critics and their reviews, and that can make the prose less engaging.
  • For the topic sentence, I've tried this.
    • It looks better, but I am still not entirely sure about the prose for this section, and I would like to see other reviewers respond to it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I hope this review is helpful. I think I would like to see how other reviewers respond to this FAC and the article in general. I do not mean that in a bad way just to be clear. I am just not as familiar with reviewing video game articles, although I wanted to help you as a first-time FAC nominator. I will keep a close eye on this nomination. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Vami

Will review. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Later today. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

You can take as much time as you need. No rush. c: TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 18:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Uh.... Um.... I just- I just read your user page and... oh my... no. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

RIP. Your contributions mean everything! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Rest in peace. Sending my salutes.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by David Fuchs

On a quick glance, the reception section especially seems a bit thin. A quick search of newspaper archives turn up a fair amount of coverage, from capsule reviews up to more substantial reviews. Also looks like a lite bit about how Letterpress' flat aesthetic helped influence the design of iOS. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Could you provide me with some direct links? TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

TrademarkedTWOrantula They're from Global Newsstream. If you email me I can forward PDFs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

• This nomination is three weeks in and has attracted a fair bit of support but no indications that it is ready to promote. It may be that it was a little under prepared for FAC. In any case, unless it makes significant progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This is now more than six weeks in and more than three weeks since my post above, and there is still no discernible movement towards a consensus to promote. So - with apologies to all involved - I am timing this out and archiving it. I would suggest that the various comments made by the reviewers are addressed off-FAC - a trip to GoCER may help here - possibly followed by PR, where the reviewers above are quite likely to to be willing to give the article another scrutiny, before bringing it back. In any event, the usual two-week hiatus re nominating any article at FAC applies. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• The mention of "stalling" in the lead is not in the body as far as I can tell, and I don't understand what these players were doing.
  • I believe Brichter changed the gameplay because he noticed that the players could select the same tiles again and again, thus hindering any progress in the match.

    I've now played the game a couple of times, and I still don't understand what this is referring to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Stalling happened back when the game was in beta testing. Maybe I should clarify that... TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Update: Clarified. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• The lead seems a bit thin -- could some more of the comments in the reception section be summarized in the lead? E.g. mention the praise for its minimalism, and perhaps mention that it was one of Apple's inspirations for iOS 7's design approach.
  • Expanded.
• I think the gameplay description needs to be expanded a little. I've played a few word games on mobile myself, but the description here doesn't give me a sense of how the game works. What does a player do in a turn? Select a sequence of adjacent letters that form a word? Select any letters they like that form a word? In the screeenshots, COWARDNESS is in multiple colours, but I don't see some of those letters on the grid. And what does it mean that some of those letters are blank -- they are the ones selected to make the word? That seems likely; so the letters can't be re-used in a given turn? I'm guessing now that the way it works is you can choose any letters in any order, but not "surrounded" letters. So a player should try to generate as many "surrounded" letters as quickly as possible, as this removes those letters from their opponent's repertoire. Is that all correct?
  • I think the game goes something like this: You select letters across the board to make a word. Then, once you submit that word, all the letters in it change to your color. However, locked tiles (tiles that are surrounded by other tiles) can't be changed. The game keeps going until every square is taken or if both players pass a turn. I will play a round of the game and take detailed notes.
• You say Brichter founded atebits 2.0, and that the previous version had been acquired by Twitter in 2010. Our article on Brichter says his version was sold to Twitter in 2010, which seems to imply he founded the first version, not the second. Can you just confirm the version of events you give is correct?
  • He is the founder of both the first and second Atebits. Clarified. And uh, here's confirmation.
• Is it "atebits" or "Atebits"? You use both.
  • Changed to "Atebits".
• The account of Brichter and Whitehead playing SpellTower in the NYT source makes it clear the inspiration for LetterPress was that they found themselves playing the same non-multi-player game while standing next to each other. I think that's a point worth including in the article.
  • Mentioned. Actually, I think that would repeat information.

    Not sure what you're referring to here -- this isn't already mentioned, is it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if I want to say "standing next to each other". Seems a little excessive... Actually, considering SpellTower is a single-player game, that does seem like a worthy detail to include. Added. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• "However, Brichter realized that players would avoid remaining tiles": I don't follow this.
  • Neither do I. I'll review the sources. Already rephrased.
• "He developed the sound effects by spitting in his microphone": not quite; the source says this was just one of the ways he created the sounds used.
  • You are right. The source says "mostly", meaning that not all of the sound effects were created the same way. Reworded.

    You now have "Most of the sound effects were created by spitting in his microphone". I think the point here is that the sound effects were created by making noises with his mouth, including by spitting; they were not computer-generated noises. How about "Brichter created most of the sound effects himself, by spitting or making other noises with his mouth into a microphone"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Reworded. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• "was challenging to explain, he explained that": avoid repetition of "explain".
  • Reworded "explained" to "claimed".
• You use "is" to describe the game in the reception section. I know the game still exists, so in the context of a discussion of gameplay that's the right tense to use, but a sentence such as "He said that Letterpress is" is jarring. I'd suggest using "was". Or is this standard usage in articles on video games?
  • To me, using "is" sounds right. However, comparing the article for Halo 3, they actually do use the word "was". Changed.
• "and would fit with "word nerds and strategy-oriented thinkers" respectively" -- what does "respectively" mean here?
  • "Respectively" attributes the reviewers. Moved word.
• What exactly was Larsen saying Game Center might do? (And I think you want "might", not "may", in that sentence.)
  • Changed word.

    But what did he think Game Center would do? How could it interfere with stats and matchmaking? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

  Original source says: The game’s greatest and perhaps only major fault is its heavy reliance on Apple’s clunky GameCenter app as a means of competing with others online. There is very little information given in terms of stat-keeping and even less about how matchmaking or setting up games with friends works. - I'm not really sure how to answer this question; Larsen doesn't really elaborate on the problems Game Center would cause. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:47, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  Update: Sentence has been rephrased. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• "and Friedman noticed and praised details": suggest dropping "noticed and"; it's implied by the praise.
  • Cut.
• "Apple took inspiration from minimalistic apps": it's a subtle difference but I think this should be "minimalist", not "minimalistic".
  • Changed. Thought "minimalistic" sounded right.
• Why list "Words with Friends" in the "See also" section? There are many word games on mobile; why single this one out?
  • It was the only turn-based multiplayer word game I could think of. Keeping it for now.

    I've struck this; not sure it's the best link but it's not really a problem. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• I'm no expert on video games, but David's comment above that there are sources you haven't used is a concern.
  • I have emailed David. Not sure if he responded.

I'm not opposing, but I think there's a little prose work to do here, and I'd want to be sure that David's concerns about completeness of sourcing are resolved before I would support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. I've looked at the edits you made to address these points, and most things are resolved. I'm going to hold off on going through again until we hear from David -- if there are more sources that'll mean more content added so I'd like to wait before re-reviewing. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I have added David's PDFs; however, I had to remove the URL links as they triggered an edit filter. Also, the sources didn't really add any new information, but they did help verify some details. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 05:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. David, are you satisfied that the article does not omit important sources? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Mike Christie I think it's satisfactory. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take another look through the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:43, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Have now struck or replied to the original points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to pause my review; TrademarkedTWOrantula, I see you've made some more edits in response to my comments, but I think there are still issues. Since another reviewer has jumped in I'm going to watch how that review progresses and will probably come back to the review at that point, and do another read through. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Teratix

At the moment I'm inclined to oppose this nomination on comprehensiveness grounds. I've turned up quite a few substantial sources unused in the article:

• Used as a case study for game design in Game Developer
  • Hmm... not really sure how I'll add this
    • Okay, I've used this source, but not as much as I hoped
      • What's keeping it from use?
        • It's the fact that it's a "design lesson". I'm not really sure how this can fit in the article.
          • You could broaden one of the existing sections or even add a new section or sub-section. Maybe have a look at some other videogame FAs for inspiration?
            • Tried looking at Killer7. The article has a legacy section; maybe I could try adding some stuff there?
• An article in Wired regarding strategy and whether the game is "solved" in the technical sense
  • Same thing for Game Developer source (but I think I could work this in the reception section) Nope. Still can't find a way to put this in.
    • What seems to be the problem?
      • I'm not really sure how I'd cite a "how-to" guide on beating the game.
        • But that's not what the article is? Focus on its discussion of whether Letterpress is solved.
          • As I said above, I will make a legacy section for the article if I have the time.
• Reviews in The Verge, TNW (plus short followup), MacStories, The Telegraph (paywalled, let me know if you need full text), ABC News, iMore
  • That's a bounty of sources. I'm rich!!
    • Update: I've used all of these.
      • Not sure these have been used to their full potential, particularly the Verge and TNW sources.
• The defunct and confusingly-named The Magazine has a review, though the author does credit Brichter for helping with the article. Might be more suitable for expanding descriptions of the game.
  • Okay... Again, I'm not really sure how to implement this source, but I've used it anyway.
    • It seems to have many more details on exactly how the game's mechanics function and I understood much more about how the game actually operated after reading this particular review. (Also, the source you linked in the citation is a different "The Magazine" – very confusing I know!)
• An interview on GigaOM survives on Wayback
  • Is that source reliable?? Used.
    • I'd say it's at least reliable for communicating Brichter's own reflections and views.
• (lower priority) A longer version of the Financial Times interview, a transcript of Rene Ritchie's interview (easier to cite)
  • Cited text version of interview, but I can't seem to access the Financial Times one.
    • I was able to access it if I came from a Google search, but not if I clicked the link directly.

Apart from these, I have the following comments on prose:

• would avoid remaining tiles on the board, thus delaying a game. I kept getting confused by this sentence because the position of "remaining" suggests it's a verb when it's actually intended as an adjective. I think you mean something like "players would tend to avoid claiming the remaining tiles on the board, leading to excessively long games".
  • Changed. Also clarified what part of speech was used for the word "remaining" in the development and release section.
• Along with other apps, the game inspired the design of iOS 7 source doesn't give this much weight to Letterpress in particular as an inspiration for iOS 7
  • Mmm... I'm gonna keep this detail. Sure, it's only mentioned briefly, but still, that's pretty significant. I'll try using your sources above (nice finds!).
    • I agree it's significant to mention – the problem is the way the sentence is written implies Letterpress was a central influence and other apps were merely "along with it", when the impression the sources gave me was Apple's designers drew inspiration from quite a few minimalist apps, with Letterpress being one among many.
      • Reworded.
        • Still think this puts too much emphasis on Letterpress. Compare to the passage from the source: Among those impressed has been Apple, which redesigned iOS this year with a flatter, minimalist look championed by Any.do. Along with music app Rdio, word game Letterpress, and competing task app Clear, Any.do was among the apps that Apple looked to for inspiration as it redesigned iOS.
• own the most tiles does "own" refer to coloured tiles or locked tiles?
  • Colored tiles in general.
• Do locked tiles become unlocked if your opponent retakes the tiles surrounding the locked ones, or are locks permanent?
  • Yes. Locked tiles do become unlocked if the opponent selects the tiles around it. Added detail (will be cited later).
• Once every square is occupied do they have to be locked or just coloured?
  • Just colored. Clarified.
• playing Zach Gage's iOS game SpellTower together, he and his wife, Jean Whitehead you haven't mentioned Whitehead before using "together", which is jarring.
  • Good catch! Mentioned.
• tiles would only turn into the player's color I'm confused – tiles do turn into the player's colour, don't they?
  • Original source states: In the first version, if you played a tile it just turned your color, which was fun for a bit but not very interesting because there was no strategy and little defense. - I assume that means players could just select the same long word over and over again (thus creating a stalemate).
    • Oh, I think I understand – locking didn't exist in the first version? Maybe make it clearer that the tiles were coloured in contrast to locked.
      • Clarified.
• Brichter realized that players would avoid remaining tiles I share Mike Christie's concerns here
  • Tried changing it to "...that games would be endless due to players avoiding the remaining tiles".
    • But why would this happen?
• gave players bonus points for surrounding tiles ... he made surrounding tiles unclaimable in these sentences, does "surrounding tiles" mean "tiles that have been surrounded", or "tiles that are surrounding other tiles"?
  • Have been. Clarified.
• determined the name maybe "determined the game's name"
  • Changed.
• chose screenshots of Letterpress to promote it on the App Store why is this significant?
  • I have no idea. Technically, every game on the App Store uses screenshots of their game soooooo... removed.
• updated with a replay feature "replay" can mean a few different things – explain what it means in this context
  • The game's replay feature isn't live. It shows individual turns in a game with an interactive slider for you to see the game in action. Explained.
• The player selects letters to form a word. Which player?
  • Changed to "a player"; isn't really specified as either one of them could do it.
    • But which player is selecting the letters in this particular case? In general I'm not sure the screenshots unambiguously illustrate what's going on in the game. I would investigate making your own diagrams or animations, like those that appear in our article on chess.
      • Clarified. It's me (the dog with a blue circle around it). Also, I'm not sure how I'd make those.
        • I'd probably use Inkscape, Commons has a tutorial. Actually, this would hit two birds with one stone because it would reduce the use of unnecessary non-free media. You could also use Inkscape to create a vectorised version of the Letterpress logo, which would look much cleaner.
• he claimed that using "claimed" can imply doubt
  • Changed to said; only solution I could think of.
• Lex Friedman of Macworld and AJ Dellinger of Gamezebo shared similar views respectively what function is "respectively" performing here?
  • Again, "respectively" attributes the two quotes to their authors. I'm not really sure how to rephrase the sentence... (moved "respectively" after "views" and before "writing"
• he shared that Game Center might interfere with player statistics and matchmaking I share Mike Christie's concerns with this sentence
  • Once again, Larsen doesn't really explain his criticism. However, I took another look at the original text and realized how I could reword this. Reworded.
• I also share his concern with the See Also section.
  • I'm just gonna remove it entirely.

– Teratix ₵ 15:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'll hold off on further follow-ups until the newly-identified sources have been incorporated. – Teratix ₵ 04:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm just gonna a quick break because of... yeah. He's not reviewing it :( TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:34, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Goodness, I just saw. Awful, awful news. – Teratix ₵ 16:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Teratix and @Mike Christie: I have replied to all of your comments. Let's keep going, TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 02:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Followed up. – Teratix ₵ 06:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Now the new sources have been at least partially added, the reception section desperately needs a rewrite to avoid falling back into X said/Y said/Z said monotony. – Teratix ₵ 06:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

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