Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sleeping Dogs (video game)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2014-09-30 [1].

Sleeping Dogs (video game)

edit
Nominator(s): Czar (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UFC), Tezero (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2012 video game Sleeping Dogs. I have made my absolute goal to take this page to FA, and alongside Tezero and Czar, I think I'm on the right track. This is the first time I nominate an article to FA seriously, so please help me. Also, the article has appeared in the main page DYK, in case anyone is interested. URDNEXT (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: While I too feel it fits the FA criteria, I cannot support this, being a primary contributor behind URDNEXT. I'm not sure how much czar has done or, accordingly, whether he would be able to vote. Tezero (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero Add yourself as a nominator! URDNEXT (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Tezero (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jaguar

edit
Resolved comments from Jaguar

Urdnext asked me if I could do a source review first, so I'm going to find and check the authenticity of some sources within the article:

Replaced with the NeoGAF link. Though I'm not sure if it is reliable. URDNEXT (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 leads to a different domain, but could this just be me? And is Filmmusicsite.com a reliable source?
I removed that source, and replaced it with a metacritic page. Pretty sure it's now reliable. URDNEXT (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37 and 47, is United Front Games a reliable source too?
That's the developers' official website. It's a primary source, though reliable. URDNEXT (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see! My mistake. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Nobody is perfect. URDNEXT (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 69, 70 and 71 - these Metacritic links are virtually identical but are used more than once?
@Jaguar Each source is used twice: one for the prose, the other for the reviews box. It's common throughout every article in the VG project. URDNEXT (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what he's saying. The citations are basically identical, but they're instantiated more than once instead of just having one for both. It'd be like declaring the same reference twice instead of using a "ref name" tag in an article without list-defined refs. Tezero (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry guys, but I have no idea of what to do with this issue. @Jaguar What am I supposed to do with these refs? URDNEXT (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wait, never mind; that's not what it is. They're not virtually identical; they're used for the different-platform (Xbox 360, etc.) versions of the game. That's stated in the title, Jaguar. Tezero (talk) 16:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Tezero and Urdnext, I should have been more specific. Despite them looking similar I think I overlooked the different platforms. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On August 3, 2012, information on cross-promotional content for the PC version of Sleeping Dogs was posted on the game's official website" - is this sourced?
Now it is. URDNEXT (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's the main issues of the references out of the way. I know that the source review wasn't very comprehensive but I'm sure someone will come along and double check over every one. Aside from the dead ref and the liability of a couple of sources, the references look in pretty good shape. The majority of the citations are in the correct places and the article is generally broad, comprehensive and well referenced. The sources could have easily passed a GAN however since this is a FAC this has to showcase some of the best work on Wikipedia. I will leave the full copyediting/prose review tomorrow morning. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 22:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Jaguar! URDNEXT (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doing the prose review now: ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Can't wait for it. URDNEXT (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't mention who published the game, it says "released by Square Enix" but neglects Namco Bandai
  • "Set within a fictionalized version of Hong Kong," - just curious, is the game set in present-day (or 2012} Hong Kong?
  • "...with a primary focus on Shen's fighting and shooting abilities, parkour skills, and gadgets that can be used in both combat and exploration" - too many conjunctions in this sentence
  • Some parts of the lead's prose seems choppy. "When not playing through the story, the player can freely roam the city of Hong Kong on foot and in vehicles" - again, the prose of this sentence could flow better by changing it to something like When not playing through the story, the player can freely roam the city of Hong Kong both on foot and in vehicles, and may participate in side activities
  • "but was canceled by Activision Blizzard in 2011" - did Activision Blizzard own United Front Games at that time?
  • In the infobox, it states that the game was released for the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One but this isn't mentioned in the lead?
  • The lead summarises the article well, so this shouldn't be a concern for the FA criteria
  • "Some of the team members pushed for English, since most gamers would not understand Cantonese" - Cantonese dialect
  • "The music present in the in-game radio stations was handled by Joe Best; he was responsible for integrating the licensed tracks into the game." - how about The music present in the in-game radio stations was handled by Joe Best; who was responsible for integrating the licensed tracks into the game
  • "Sleeping Dogs was promoted through the use of various Internet and TV trailers" - why is internet capitalised?
  • "A Hong Kong-themed map, Kong King, was available on all distributing services" - this doesn't make sense, is this still referring to Team Fortress 2?
  • "Blyth called the supplementary characters "brilliantly recognisable stereotypes" - recognizable?
  • In the sales section, how did the game do in other territories such as Japan or Australia?
  • Unfortunately, there isn't any information on the sales of the game asides from the one we already know (ww sales). This has something to do with Square thinking the game didn't sell well. They probaly avoided releasing sales stats. URDNEXT (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could the sequal section at all be expanded?

Those were most of the issues I could find with the prose in the article, however overall it does look promising. The only real concerns I could find were a few choppy sentences in the first half of the article that could use with some reconstructing! For example there were too many conjunctions ('ands') in one sentence that interrupted the flow of the prose. I know that the FAC process is harsh, but if those issues were addressed and some sentences reconstructed then this article should have no problem passing! Good luck, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 18:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar We have adressed all of your concerns. What do you think about the article now? Also, thanks for the help here, really appreciate it! URDNEXT (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing all of those concerns Urdnext and Tezero (and Czar?). I'll support this one and it looks like this is on the road to finally becoming FA. I wish it the very best of luck in it doing that! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ɱ

edit
I have looked over the images used in the article, and they all appear to meet copyright policies. I skimmed through the text and references and found no issues; if I have time I'll look forward to analyzing it more. Still, this receives my general support to become a FA.--ɱ (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, ɱ! URDNEXT (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SNUGGUMS

edit
Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Close to FA-material, here's 2¢ from me;

  • "These weapons, though they can cause greater damage to enemies than normal attacks, do not last long and break with overuse"..... needs source
@SNUGGUMS Done. Are you satisfied with the article now that I've adressed all you concerns? URDNEXT (talk) 01:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the player can restart from the last checkpoint"..... needs source
Done. URDNEXT (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Official PlayStation Magazine" is a DAB
  • The "Official PlayStation Magazine" page can refer to any of the following (as listed on its page):
  1. PlayStation: The Official Magazine
  2. PlayStation Official Magazine (UK)
  3. Official PlayStation Magazine (Ireland)
  4. Official PlayStation Magazine (Australia)
  5. Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine
Simply link to the one you were referring to. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN69: Unlink Metacritic
  • FN73 "Edge Magazine" should not be part of the title
  • FN78: See above note for "Official PlayStation Magazine"
  • FN97: Unlink "Computer and Video Games"

I'm almost ready to support, just some minor fixes to do. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments, SNUGGUMS! URDNEXT (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, get to it! Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I adressed all your concerns. The only thing left is whether [2] is reliable or not. URDNEXT (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

edit

As usual, mostly looking at the references and reference formatting here.

collapsed resolved referencing issues
  • The Davies ref is missing commas between day and year for both publication and retrieval date. The same thing is true of the retrieval date for the Jeff Tymoschuk Metacritic profile. I may have missed others; all dates need to be audited for missing commas.
  • Why is Train2Game a reliable source?
Interviews as long as they are not fake, can be reliable, even if the website isn't that popular. Also, as long as the site doesn't have any viruses, which makes Train reliable. @Squeamish Ossifrage URDNEXT (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to oppose a nomination on the back of one marginal source, but this is pretty far short of the standard for determining reliable sources that I'm accustomed to. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be if we were citing facts created by the site's authors, but WP:VG's convention is to allow interview sources by default if they're not excessively sketchy. It's even better if you can find some kind of confirmation from the interviewee that it's real, as I was able to do for a couple in the Sonic X article (I linked to the interviewee's website, where the interviews were referenced), but this isn't always available. My guess is that it's because interviews tend to be hosted on fansites and things that wouldn't normally lie about what someone's saying, plus it's significantly more work to try to impersonate a famous person (and get away with it without the other members of your site knowing) than to just make things up and claim them as facts. Tezero (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the original source with a new one published by Square Enix. Hopefully it's considered reliable. Also, I recommend someone archive it. URDNEXT (talk) 22:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Game Network source lacks a retrieval date.
Done. URDNEXT (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what's up with the timestamp in the GameSpot review reference. Template shenanigans, maybe? There's another one of these in the Xav de Matos reference from Joystiq.
Removed timestamps. URDNEXT (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you link publications the first time they appear in the references, you have to be careful that doesn't catch you: you don't link Computer and Video Games in the Ivan reference (currently at #9), but then you do link it in the interview currently at #27. This probably needs audited overall to check for other problems, too; for example, you cite Gamasutra twice but link it neither time. And I think you link United Front Games every time you cite it. Really, you can choose any option: not linking publications in references, linking them on first appearance, or linking them every time. But whatever you pick, you need to do so consistently.
Done czar ♔ 17:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • VG247 is a blog, but it's an award-winning blog of an industry expert, so I'll tentatively give it a pass on reliability, although if it's replaceable, that'd be ideal. The same probably applies to Anita Sarkeesian's Feminist Frequency.
  • Why is Designing Sound a reliable source? Its site policy doesn't suggest there's much in the way of editorial oversight.
The VG project had a discussion last week about whether interviews coming from small sites could be considered reliable. The conclusio was that as long as the interview is real (not stringed), and the website is stable (not viruses, etc), the source can be considered reliable. And also, that interview gave A LOT of information on the game's development. URDNEXT (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Electronic Theatre a reliable source? It appears to be essentially a small group blog by pseudonymous authors.
Replaced it with a GameSpot article. URDNEXT (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Year of the Dog" reference cites Valve as an author rather than publisher or site, which isn't really consistent with the way you format other web cites without specific named authors.
  • I happened to notice that the Tamoor Hussain reference has a publication date at the site (June 27, 2012) that isn't included in the reference. It's probably a good idea to check all the references that lack author attribution and/or publication dates to make sure they really aren't available.
Done. URDNEXT (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done. Well, the Tamoor Hussain reference is done, but it's clear that no comprehensive source audit has not been done:
  • It's not quite the same issue, but references #3 and #4 seem to be the same source, but have different publication dates listed (and one is linked to an archive, one to the original). If these are the same source, the differences need to be rectified and the references combined. I'm concerned about the publication date discrepancy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kotaku source at #29 has a credited author (Brian Ashcraft).
  • The Eurogamer source at #30 has a credited author (Wesley Yin-Poole) and a publication date (May 8, 2010).
  • The Gamasutra source at #33 has a credited author (Christian Nutt).
I stopped checking at this point, but the bottom line is that all the sources without authors and/or publication dates need to be carefully audited to see if that information is available. Many legitimately aren't, but more of this should have been caught before FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my understanding of the MOS that article titles like the Luke Karmali one should be styled in appropriate case rather than ALL CAPS even if the source does otherwise; someone else may wish to confirm that I'm correct here.
What do you mean by styled? The source looks fine to me. URDNEXT (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few refs (currently #71-74, I think) where you italicize Metacritic, unlike all your other web references (indeed, it shouldn't be).
  • You give Future as the publisher of Edge in the Brown ref (#32) but not the review at #76. I don't think you need it.
  • Almost all your authors are formatted Last, First. That's not true for the last two with Mitch Dyer and Andy Robinson.

I haven't really looked much beyond the reference formatting, so other than these issues, I'm neutral on promotion. Although, as a matter of personal preference, I'm not very fond of either of the big nav templates at the bottom. I just don't think there's enough content to warrant them here; there's not even a franchise parent article, so the Sleeping Dogs template doesn't even have its header linked anywhere. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

VG247 was deemed reliable at WP:VG/RS. Fixed some of the ref stuff czar ♔ 08:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the nav template at the bottom. URDNEXT (talk) 15:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeamish Ossifrage We have adressed all your concerns. What do you think about the article now? URDNEXT (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Struck resolved issues. Leaving a couple unstruck while I evaluate my position and whether there's a remaining actionable issue with references/ref formatting. References aside, I also did a quick image check; several look mostly good. I'm not sure that File:Sleeping Dogs - Environmental Kill.jpg has an adequate NFCC#8 use justification (and probably needs the copyright holder more clearly stated), and File:Sleeping Dogs - Hong Kong.jpg needs a NFCC#2 statement. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done that image stuff. Tezero (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing those reference issues. There are certainly still things about the references that I would do differently, but that's not the standard. As noted below, use of publishers for periodicals is not necessary, but I don't see any indication that they are forbidden either, and you seem to be consistent about their use. To the extent that I had problems with referencing, I think you're good to go. Unfortunately, moving on to the body of the article, I have concerns about the prose:

  • From the lead:
    • "carjacking, street racing, joining a fight club and visiting a karaoke bar": Consider at least changing the order here to avoid making this an example of Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking.
    • I'm dubious of the wikilink of "heat" to fugitive. I could probably be convinced otherwise, but this is a little close to WP:EASTER for me as it stands.
    • "Through various activities such as fights, races, and driving": The elements in a serial list like this need to be in agreement. Fighting, racing, and driving; or fights, races, and drives. I'd prefer the former. Actually, though, I'd prefer this whole sentence be reworded to be more active and to avoid the dreadful "various activities".
    • The sentence about United Front's development research feels out of place in the development history section. It's not, but perhaps the lack of connecting clauses is what gives that impression.
    • "Six months of downloadable content packs": So the content lasted six months? Or takes six months? You mean, I am sure, that it was released over six months, but that's not really what this says. Also, that's not a parallel construction when you cite the number of expansions. Is there a discrete number of DLC packs to reference here? Oh, and wikilink downloadable content.
    • "currently" in the lead does not make me a happy reviewer. Consider saying when it was announced, or when development began, or something. Even an "as of" construction would be better.
  • From Gameplay:
    • [T]he player...
    • I know CR4ZE made some suggestions here, but I think you need to find some way to mention (and link) that the Sun On Yee is based on the nonfictional Sun Yee On (assuming you've got a source for it, anyway).
    • "undertaking side-missions and several other activities": Vague.
    • "a circular mini-map ... that displays a small map": Yes, a mini-map would be expected to display a map.
    • "Shen's health is shown by a semicircular meter on the left side of the mini-map, while another one on the right represents his face, which allows Wei to regenerate life during fighting when it is full, then empties after a short time.": This whole sentence loses me. You have real antecedent problems, I think. A semicircular meter represents his face? His face allows him to regenerate life during fighting? And then his face empties after a short time? I'm not sure how to fix this, because I'm not really certain what you're trying to convey.
    • "melee combat has been frequently compared": That's not what your source says. It compares the mechanics, yes, but doesn't indicate that they have been "frequently" compared. Perhaps cut that wording?
    • Oh, so the face thing above is because it's actually called a "Face Meter"? Much of this section needs to be reordered to make sense, then.
    • "when the player is upgraded": My long hobby of tabletop roleplaying makes this read as a clear error. The player doesn't get upgraded; the character does. That is, the player is the person playing the game. You get this right a couple of sentences later when the "player ... press[es] a button".
    • I'll agree that the description of environmental attacks seems unnecessarily detailed.
    • "The game also features a shooting mechanic using a cover system": Perhaps "The game also features a cover system"?
    • "The player respawns at hospitals when his health drains.": When it is exhausted? When his health meter is empty? When he is defeated? I'm not sure what the best way to word this is, but "when his health drains" implies that it is actively draining (that is, when he is losing life), which is not at all correct.
    • My problem with the list of open world activities applies here, too.
    • "Going out with girlfriends": Seems informal.
    • "The successful completion of the side missions": They were "side-missions" with a hyphen earlier in this section. Pick one and stick with it (probably without the hyphen).
    • "Sleeping Dogs tracks the acquired skills in areas such as hand-to-hand combat which improve through experience and their usage in the game.": Verbose and awkward. As written, the "areas" improve through experience, not the "skills".
    • "Through various activities such as fights, races, and driving, the player can accumulate Stat Awards.": Near-duplicate of the wording in the lead, which isn't my preference. All the problems this sentence has there, it has here as well.

And I'm stopping the prose review there, assuming that the rest will read more or less as the first two sections have. This really needs a thorough copy-edit before I would be comfortable supporting promotion. Accordingly, oppose at this time. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the above looks improved. I'm holding off a detailed re-read of these sections (and further into the article) for the moment, as I'm aware that there's a significant copyediting effort underway. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492

edit
  • Not to step on anyone's toes, but since there's a request at my talk page... but first a reference comment: your "accessdate" parameter for the references "Weapons, Vehicles, and Clothes Gameplay" and "NeoGAF Games of the Year 2012 Awards" is malformed
collapsed resolved image issues
  • File:Sleeping Dogs - Hong Kong.jpg or similar. If we're noting how realistic the portrayal of HK is, wouldn't it be better to compare, say, the shopping district of Kowloon as in the game, and the photograph we have? It works much better than an image of an unrelated part of HK, one which many people wouldn't know if it's realistic or not
  • If you're losing your temper over policy, I think you may want to wait for Tezero to get back. You can still use an image in that section, to illustrate how realistic the game's portrayal of HK is... but it needs to be better supported. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 Can we just move on with the review and forget the image? The pic wasn't that necessary anyway... URDNEXT (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's a shame to scrap a perfectly good image just because the FUR hasn't been completed. Is it still around? I'll write an FUR if you don't want to, because the environments really were very widely covered. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is still a blue link (see above). The issue is not the FUR, but rather the use in the article. The article's use is to illustrate that the image is a good representation of the environment of Hong Kong. Somebody unfamiliar with the city cannot be sure of that claim with a single illustration. Pairing a non-free screenshot with a free photograph of the same or similar area would have a much stronger fair use claim. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 If I had it on PC... I only have it on PS3 and I don't have a capture card. Taking it with my phone would be useless. Is there anything else from the game that is available on the internet useful for replacing the current pic? URDNEXT (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero and P: [3] Pair it with this, and we got Chrsitmas. URDNEXT (talk) 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, yeah, it'll be much easier to find a match for the top or bottom of these. Tezero (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tezero What d you think we should do? URDNEXT (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raw numbers is not part of the NFCC. It depends on what is being illustrated. The difference between the PS3 and PS4 releases, for instance, would not be applicable here, and would be rather silly to get rid of in the GTA5 article. The one on waterboarding, however, would probably be removed without causing any significant damage to a reader's understanding. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492 So if we remove the one in reception, would it make a difference? URDNEXT (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem rather eager to remove the image. I'd rather we work to make the article the best possible. I've already mentioned an image that might be relatively easy to find something similar to. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 I adressed all your concerns. Do you approve the images now? URDNEXT (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 Tezero Ok then, here you go... File:Hong Kong streets at night vs SD.jpg URDNEXT (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's good, URDNEXT. Just add the source for the bottom image. Tezero (talk) 00:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. @Tezero, can you write a FUR for the image? URDNEXT (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, and I've also written an FUR, though you should edit it and look for the hidden comments, where information about the bottom image is needed. Also, I don't mean to be a nag, but technically Wikipedia doesn't have the rights to the bottom image if it isn't hosted on Wikimedia Commons; you may need to find a free replacement and edit the double-image accordingly, or ask the blog's owner to freely license their work (which czar can help you with). Tezero (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much the freely licensed photo would matter in this case because it's already part of a composite unfree image with a FUR now. Of course we would ideally use a free image for comparison with the in-game image, but the point might just be moot now czar ♔ 03:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fair use is supposed to be minimal, and I don't think an argument that we couldn't find a free photograph of Hong Kong would hold up in traffic court. Tezero (talk) 03:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 I updated the image with the image you gave me from commons. Is it all good now? Tezero we have a whole lot to do with the cr4ze concerns. URDNEXT (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492 So that means the image review passes? URDNEXT (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GoingBatty

edit

URDNEXT asked me to take a look at the article. I made some copyedits and added some wikilinks.

  • I'm wondering if some of the information in the lead could be trimmed, such as the last two sentences in paragraph 3.
  • I requested an update for the Triad Wars sequel, since the full reveal is scheduled for today.
  • Reference #80 is a dead link.

Good luck with the article! GoingBatty (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@URDNEXT: Thanks for addressing some of my comments. Two more comments:
  • Now that the lead states the sequel "is set to be released in early 2015", should that info also be in the Sequel section with a reference?
  • I removed the unnecessary |publisher= parameters.
Nice job with the article! GoingBatty (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, GoingBatty! Also, thank you for removing the publisher parameters. I just mentioned the released date in the sequel section as you asked. I there anything else you'd like to add about the article? Any problems? Any errors? URDNEXT (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@URDNEXT: Thanks - no other comments from me. GoingBatty (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CR4ZE

edit

Unfortunately guys, I have serious concern with the prose

Responded below czar ♔ 15:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead looks disproportionately long for the article's length and could be snipped to three paragraphs.
  • The paragraphs and release/marketing on the lead are massively important. If there's one paragraph that could merge with another is the gameplay one with the first paragraph. But even then, it'd be a long shot. URDNEXT (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The player controls Wei Shen ... as an undercover."—very awkward sentence. Try "The player controls Wei Shen, a Chinese-American police officer who infiltrates the Sun On Yee Triad organization undercover" or similar, and move "named after the real life Sun Yee On" into an efn to stop the prose being skewed.
  • "Shen, a martial arts expert..."—A laborious sentence given the amount of commas having to be employed. I think it could be split in two.
  • "Shen's health ... empties after a short time."—another. I began to think about how to fix it, but the second half of this sentence stumps me. No idea what it's talking about.
  • "... heavily inspired by Batman: Arkham Asylum's combat system"—clear WP:OR. Checked through the IGN review (next source used in prose), which doesn't mention Arkham Asylum at all, thought it actually gives Arkham City a passing mention.
  • Erm, it still says that. For what it's worth, I wrote the initial version of the Reception section in its current structure, and I remember seeing lots of Arkham Asylum comparisons, though I'm not sure if any of them mentioned actual influence - not that reviewers would necessarily be adequate sources for that, anyway. Perhaps "The game's melee combat has been frequently compared to that of Batman: Arkham Asylum" or something would be in order? Tezero (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When full, the player's screen will turn yellow". The screen can be "filled"? The arrangement of this sentence is awkward, and what is meant by "other benefits when the player is upgraded?
  • All that detail about environmental attacks seems to stray into game guide territory to me. Could be summarised.
  • "These weapons ... break with overuse"—flip the inversion around. ("Though they ... , these weapons ... break with overuse".)
  • "The game also features a shooting mechanic"—"shooting mechanic" is vague. Fix the repetition of "use". Also, can players only use weapons behind cover? That's what the sentence makes out to me.
  • Refer back to the player as "they" instead of "he". I find using "players" instead of "the player" gives prose better flow, but it's a personal preference. The problem is there's occasional switching to "players". Pick one and go with it.
  • The description of the heat system is adapted from GTA V, so unless you're telling me that it functions exactly as it does in GTA V, it needs to be rewritten. Is there a cooldown mode? Does the line of sight of officers display on the minimap? What is a "wanted vicinity" and why is it being introduced now? From that, is there line of sight or vicinity, or both? Because in GTA V, the line of sight displays on the mini-map but the vicinity doesn't. Is it called a wanted level or a heat level? These are distinctions that need to be made.
  • Link jargon like head-up display and checkpoint.
  • "Despite campaign missions ... at their leisure—is a mouthful that can be easily snipped. Lose the redundant "being necessary to progress through the game" and go from there.
  • "When not playing through a mission, players..."—lose repetition of "play" and "can".
  • Description of XP system is quite vague, giving examples of how it is earned but not how it actually changes gameplay. Drop the italics on "Melee Skill Tree".

This sentence needs better reference support, because the IGN review does not go into as much detail leaving some bits here unsupported.

  • I won't read into Synopsis as I'll likely pick the game up on PS4 and want to have fresh eyes.
  • I think there's been a little too much snipped from the article about its rocky development since I last looked at it for the GAN. Certainly, it's better without all the trivial marketing bits, however the cancellation under Activision was a major roadblock in the game's development and I thought Van Der Mescht and Hirshberg's comments were interesting. As is Square Enix's reasoning to pick the IP up again.
  • "They were intrigued by a game idea ... to the open world genre"—"and felt it would be" is awkward. This sentence could be rephrased slightly.
  • "and the game was released worldwide in late 2012 as both a critical and commercial success, selling over 1.5 million copies worldwide within a year of its release."—source doesn't cover the critical success claim. Also, I would try "... in late 2012 to both critical and commercial success".
  • The prose in Design seriously lacks flow and needs a lot of work. I'm seeing lots of waffle like "because they aimed to", "found that there are", "so they decided", "Kaskamanidis did not have trouble reviewing dialogue in a language he did not understand", repetition of "the game", "the team", "the developers" and "DJ" that can be fixed by recasting sentences, "since they did not" et cetera. I am also seeing several grammar errors ie mixing up of singular and plural like "The team wanted to find voice actor who had", and simply incorrect phrasing like "Tsunami's suggested the developers to get a package deal". What is the error in "really instil"? This section needs to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb.
  • "Prior to the release, United Front Games relied heavily on viral marketing"—There is no subject in this sentence.
  • Unfortunately the prose in Marketing suffers from similar problems.
  • Think about how the section is arranged. Why is there a paragraph on a Just Cause 2 easter egg in the middle?
  • More waffle—"through the use of", "were utilized by",
  • "A Limited Edition of the game ... and "Police Protection Pack"."—awkward sentence, needs rephrasing. "A special edition for Australia ..." sentence has the same problem.
  • "eight battle-type items"—what's that?
  • "Anyone who has a save file for ... safehouse closet"—really awkward to navigate this sentence. It needs to be rephrased, and shouldn't feature "Anyone who has" or "as soon as the player gets a chance". Also not clear which game you play to get which outfit.
  • "add[ing] to the ambi[a]nce of Hong Kong"—really vague, doesn't mean anything. Why has the quote been butchered like that? If you need to fix typos in it or slightly reshuffle, just do it as per MOS:QUOTE.
  • "new tasks like money hidden around the city"—what does this mean?
  • "November, 2012 s the"—typo?
  • "through February 2013"—what does this mean? Throughout February? In February? After February? Also, how is the "Wheels of Fury" half of this sentence related to the other?
  • "a gangster ordered dead by Uncle Po who has risen up from the underworld to take his vengeance on the Sun On Yee"—Confusing. Is he dead or ordered dead? And if he's dead, how does a ghost rise up through a criminal underworld?
  • "Shen fights Cat's army ...'"—this material is unsourced and skewed by commas that make it difficult to understand. In fact, the following paragraphs' plot details are unsourced, too.
  • There is excessive journalese in Reception. Many of these quotes can be summarised or removed.
  • What I meant is that there's too much exuberant language both in the text and the supporting quotes i.e. 'The leveling system was widely commended, being described by Ryckert as "stand[ing] out from the open-world pack"'. "Widely commended" claim is supported by Ryckert's review, which naturally features journalese, so I think there's a tone issue with the writing here. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now I'm confused. The reviews were strongly positive; why shouldn't we mirror that? (I myself haven't even played it, and I'm not the biggest fan of Western open-world games in general.) Tezero (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite think an ~80 aggregate score qualifies as "strongly positive" for a video game, but that's just my opinion. My issue was with the exuberant general statements being supported by journalese quotes from reviewers, although the balance looks better now. Mind "Moriarty lauded the game's depiction..." and similar statements because their construction is awkward, and using "lauded" and "liked" within the same sentence feels odd. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Watch for repetitive phrases throughout, like "praised the other characters, praising the voice actors", "Blyth called the supplementary characters ... though he found some characters".

There is serious work to be done before this article can reach FA quality. Unfortunately, I have to oppose for now until there is a serious copy-edit to improve the prose. Some sections will need to be revamped, but I know the three of you together are capable of doing so. Please ping me once you think you've solved the issues and I'll reconsider my opposition. CR4ZE (t • c) 12:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Replied below. No, I haven't seen it, and I'm not huge on most superhero films, excepting one of my favourite films ever The Dark Knight. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from JimmyBlackwing

edit

Have to back up CR4ZE on this one. Prose is awkward right from the first sentence.

  • "Sleeping Dogs is an open world, third-person action-adventure video game developed by United Front Games in conjunction with Square Enix London and released by Square Enix and Namco Bandai Games for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 video game consoles, and Microsoft Windows." — Huge run-on, broken up only by an inexplicable comma near the end. Could probably be halved in size, or split into two sentences, without loss.
  • The word "release" appears, in one form or another, four times in the first two sentences. And two of those instances preface unnecessary full dates, which could (and should) be shortened for readability.
  • "Set within a fictionalized present-day version of Hong Kong" — Could be reduced to "Set in contemporary Hong Kong" (or even "Set in Hong Kong") without loss.

A few random samples from the article body:

  • "Despite campaign missions being necessary to progress through the game and unlock certain content and access certain parts of the city, players can complete them at their leisure." — Packed with redundant words and far too light on punctuation. Then it ends with the informal phrase "at their leisure". Could be reduced by more than half, and merged with the next sentence (also shortened), without loss: "Although players must complete missions to unlock content and to continue the story, they may instead wander the game's open world and participate in activities such as carjacking, street racing, joining a fight club and visiting a karaoke bar."
  • "Kaskamanidis did not have trouble reviewing dialogue in a language he did not understand, because according to him, 'you can always detect quality acting through a person's performance.'" — Needlessly long and clunky. An example: "Kaskamanidis did not understand the language spoken by the actors, but he reviewed their work under the assumption that 'you can always detect quality acting through a person's performance.'"
  • "It is revealed that Po gave Pendrew high-ranking Triad members to distract him from Po's own business operations, leading to Po's rise in power, and Pendrew murdered him upon finding this out." — More unnecessary words ("to distract him from Po's own business operations, leading to Po's rise in power") and informal phrasing ("finding this out").

Given the size of this article, it's tough to say whether there'll be enough time to solve such deep prose issues. One thing is certain: it needs a thorough cleaning, from its first sentence to its last. Simply fixing the examples CR4ZE or I provided will not be enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already overbooked for the near future, so doubt I'll have time this week for such a great undertaking, but I can try to take a pass this weekend if I can muster the time. I should add two things: (1) that my copyediting ability has been criticized recently and thus may not be worth much here, and (2) that my thoughts on the prose are registered on the article's talk page (most recently, the 13th). Wish I had more time to give this. Anyway, we can request at GOCE for now. czar ♔ 15:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@URDNEXT: Most of the people I could recommend have been retired from Wikipedia for years. The only two I can think of aren't really viable in this case: Tezero (already a nominator) and CR4ZE (already opposing). I suppose you could ask Tezero to revamp the article, but I'd guess that he's too close to the text at this point. I agree with Czar that you should contact the GOCE, even though that project's track record is spotty. The prose needs a lot of work and there isn't much time in which to do it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBlackwing I'll find a way to get someone to do the prose. URDNEXT (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. I should add that Czar's rewrite of Marketing and release is already a huge improvement. It's a shame that he has so little time to work on the article: his help is needed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBlackwing Quite honestly, I'm not sure if the article has even chances of passing goven the amount of current concerns with the prose. URDNEXT (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's only been nominated for five days, I think you have a chance. I've seen some truly horrendous prose (on articles that I nominated) salvaged during FAC. There's no reason to withdraw yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping me when the copy edit is finished and I'll take a look. As Jimmy said above, don't be discouraged about the FAC yet. It's still early days into the review and there's a fair chance that the issues raised by Squeamish, Jimmy and I can be fixed for this to pass. CR4ZE (t • c) 04:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Blackmane

edit

Hi, as URDNEXT has mentioned above, I've received their request to run a copyedit over the article and have asked them to list a request with WP:GOCE, which they've done and I've accepted. I would highly appreciate it if editing to the article is kept to a minimum and that any prose related comments be directed to my talk page. This isn't so that I'm taking ownership of the article, it's just to avoid any edit conflicts that may result in too many people trying to help. I've largely worked my way through the first few sections and am working on the Design section, which has quite a great deal to pare down. I would appreciate if a second (or even third) set of eyes have a look over the preceding sections and check them for flow, readability and sense. Blackmane (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment I've pretty much gutted and rewritten the Design section, particularly the paragraph on audio design. I found a number of exceedingly close paraphrases that were closer to being blatant copyright violations in that section. It was over detailed and added little to the article except bloat. Blackmane (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackmane Sounds great. John will be doing a c/e on release/marketing and downloadable content, so if you could, please avoid making edits to those sections to avoid conflicts. URDNEXT (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to do the second run-through that Blackmane requested. I'll start once he's finished with the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also remark that Blackmane's copyedit of the Development section was a bit overzealous. The section is now far from comprehensive—and, after recent edits from URDNEXT, it appears to have been corrupted. I can't any make sense of it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing Is it better now that John went over it? I hope it is. URDNEXT (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's much better. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JimmyBlackwing Do you think it can pass now? URDNEXT (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for John to finish the entire article before deciding. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@URDNEXT: Please be careful when you add huge chunks of text into the article that you are asking us to check. I picked up a copyvio (might have been two) in the text you added to the development section. I think the text came from previous versions of the article, but please make sure you check in future. I'm not sure if the diffs need to be revdel'd, I might have to check with some of the copyright specialists. Blackmane (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine, we all need to be careful about where the text comes from. Just copy pasting a few lines into Google to see if it appears anywhere already. This is especially the case when resurrecting older text. Blackmane (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @URDNEXT:, @John:, @JimmyBlackwing: @Tezero: I'm going to try and finish up as much of my copy edit as I can. I will be traveling for work from Oct 1 and am unsure as to whether I'll be able to get online from that date. With some luck I'll be back online at the weekend, but after that I will be on only very intermittently as I will be moving. Blackmane (talk) 01:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further prose comments from JimmyBlackwing

edit

Working through the article, I'm noticing a lot of crufty information and redundant words. It's melting away without much trouble. However, I just reached the plot summary, which is (no offense) quite possibly the worst I've ever seen in a VG FAC. It's an avalanche of character and organization names, interspersed with snippets of generally unnecessary plot information:

  • "After Dogeyes attacks the Golden Koi, Winston retaliates with an attack on a warehouse owned by Dogeyes. Shen convinces Winston to spare Dogeyes' drug maker Siu Wah to avoid the wrath of Uncle Po, leader of the Sun On Yee. Shen destroys the warehouse and captures Siu Wah, earning the trust of the Water Street Gang."
  • "As a reward for saving his life, Uncle Po promotes Shen to the rank of Red Pole, succeeding Winston as leader of the Water Street Gang. At the request of Mrs. Chu, Shen captures Johnny, who confesses that Dogeyes was behind the wedding massacre. Shen captures Dogeyes and delivers him to Mrs. Chu, who kills him."
  • "When fellow Red Pole Henry 'Big Smile' Lee attempts to take over the Water Street Gang's territory, Shen resists and instead agrees to an alliance with Red Pole 'Broken Nose' Jiang. During a meeting with the other Red Poles and a hospitalised Uncle Po, Jiang nominates Po's nephew 'Two Chin' Tsao as temporary Sun On Yee leader to prevent Lee nominating himself."

It needs to be rewritten from scratch. Cut it down to 2-3 paragraphs; eliminate all character and organization names non-essential to the thinnest, most straightforward description of the story. Leave character introductions for the "Setting and characters" section. And, if possible, introduce citations—they're standard issue for VG FAs. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot citations aren't necessary for Plot sections of anything - if you're disputing any details, though, I suppose some could be provided. Tezero (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't necessary, but it's typical to include them in VG FAs—as the argument goes, a video game plot is not as easily verifiable as the plot of a book or film. Plus, video games have a limitless amount of potential events, so citations help to separate the wheat ("The game begins when...") from the chaff ("Protagonist guy beats up thug 242 and..."). That seems particularly relevant with this article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my first run through of this section, I rearranged a lot of the existing text rather than cut into it much. So instead of a scalpel, I'm going to break out my chainsaw on this. Blackmane (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Blackmane Yay! Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've brutalised the Synopsis section with my chainsaw. Let me know if I was too brutal. Blackmane (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's a good foundation, but it's a bit too short and vague as-is. Important characters discussed in the Setting and characters section can and should be mentioned by name in the synopsis, for example. A bit less generalization of major events in the story would give the section more weight as well. That said, it's already a big improvement in terms of intelligibility—I can actually tell what the story's about now (!)—despite the imperfections. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both your comments. It's important that I get feedback from outside eyes. As I've copy edited a great deal of the material much of it becomes immediately obvious to me but may seem obscure to people who are just reading. I'll go back and spend some more time reworking it. Blackmane (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to stir the pot, but it looks WAY too short - like, not even half as long as it should be. Is it really appropriate to have what on my monitor is about a page and a half of development but not enough Plot to even know the basics of what happens? This is anti-crufting gone terribly mad. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately pruned it hard to get at the core of the material. Per URDNEXT's and JimmyBlackwing's comments I've readded some detail to flesh it back out without being excessive. Blackmane (talk) 06:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the page need to be pruned hard for the core of the material? This would be an adequate amount of coverage for, like, a Sly Cooper, Spyro, or '90s Zelda game, not a lengthy, fully voice-acted triple-A offering. I mean, look at our other video game FAs - heck, what about Grand Theft Auto V? That's pretty comparable in narrative depth, right? But it goes into a much more reasonable level of detail, I think. Tezero (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It needed to be pruned because it had grown into an unreadable mess. If you look at GTAV's plot section, you'll notice that organization and character names are kept to a minimum, and that plot-critical events take center stage. It's a solid, coherent and (considering the game's size) spare summary. The same cannot be said of the old Sleeping Dogs synopsis. I agree that it's currently too short, but you have to start with a firm foundation. Here, as it stands, is what needs to be done to finish the Plot section:
  • The characters mentioned in "Setting and characters" should line up with those mentioned in Synopsis; no others should be included.
  • Synopsis needs to be beefed up in detail without returning to name overload, and the story's core arc should be clear.
  • Character nicknames (where necessary) should be introduced in "Setting and characters", then used without introduction in Synopsis.
  • Likewise, all organizations ("Water St gang", "18K gang", "Lee's gang") should be defined in "Setting and characters" and never again.
These steps will bring boring, hard-to-read sentences ("The group leader of the Sun On Yee Triads, David Wai-Lin 'Uncle' Po, is also critically wounded in the attack but is saved by Shen.") back to life: "Uncle Po is critically wounded in the attack but is saved by Shen." If you want to use GTAV as a model, it's the clarity and succinctness—not the raw length—that should be borrowed for this article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd add that GTA V's plot was never much of a problem. It was short from the get-go. The Development section had to be split off because there was good material that was disproportionately long, and Reception got massively culled after the peer review. I think this article's scope is decent, and I agree with you that raw length is irrelevant as long as the material is succinct. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage, I believe I am going to have to step back from the article. As it is now, I'm not copy editing it so much as actual editing the core material. I'll close the request at the WP:GOCE page as the text isn't stable enough for a copy edit to be done. Blackmane (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I come back to the article, something's changed, so I don't think it would be fair to revisit my vote yet. I'd encourage all of you to keep going through and making sure the prose is tight. I'm seeing a couple of instances of jagged prose in Gameplay and Reception right now. The article's definitely getting much closer, but I'm not ready yet to reconsider my opposition. @Blackmane: Regardless, your copy edit insofar improved the article a lot. CR4ZE (t • c) 09:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shit, what now? URDNEXT (talk) 10:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the main editors of the article discuss what material is missing and sources to go in, as per the usual BRD. As long as the reviewers agree that it has the right sorts of material for a FAC, barring a copy edit, then you are always welcome to drop another request at WP:GOCE for a copy editor. The guild can only do copy editing when the material and sourcing is largely stable, so that the only thing we really need to do is tidy it up grammatically, spelling, flow that sort of thing. It's not really our role to dive into the main editing and I've kinda violated those guidelines (not that it's the sort of guidelines that people get sanctioned for). If you do go for another request at the guild, feel free to ping me to see if I'm available for another run at copy editing it again. Best of luck! Blackmane (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: At this stage, I don't think the article is prepared for FAC. Initially it seemed like prose was the main issue, and that's fixable. Unfortunately, huge content problems have emerged during the nomination, what with the messy Plot section, the thin Development section and the allegations of copyvio. I hadn't bothered to oppose officially until now, but I think CR4ZE's restated opposition and Blackmane's departure have put the final nails into this nom's coffin. I suggest that the nominators withdraw, revamp the article, do a peer review and then renominate in a few weeks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm gonna work as hard as I can on this. If it doesn't pass, then I'll retire from the site. This article has literally been my life for the past weeks, and I even almost lost my job because of how much time I spend on it. URDNEXT (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • URDNEXT, an FAC failing, assuming this one does, isn't the end of the world. My first one did on prose concerns - I didn't understand because I was 14 and thought it looked fine, but the other editors saw something afoul in it I didn't. Eventually it passed, and here I am now with six FAs and an FL on my Wiki-resume. Hell, even after czar orchestrated the merging of a bunch of pages I'd created, several of them GAs, I'm still here, as is he after what looks like the first serious prose-related oppose votes on one of his FACs and me tearing apart one of his GANs on clarity concerns - and not only are we not biting at each other's heels; we're both co-nominators here. Things like this happen, and I encourage you to look on the bright side of what you've already done here and what you still can. Tezero (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first nomination in which I was involved failed per 1a, too. The nom process was a disaster awfully similar to this one. Now, six articles on which I've made large content contributions have been TFAs, and I'm the main editor on WPVG's largest featured topic. The sky's the limit if you don't quit. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help guys, but I quit. I really need to focus on my life and career. I can't keep on doing this anymore. However, I will be back one day. Thanks for all the good times you've given me, Tezero Czar Jaguar URDNEXT (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I sound like a douche saying this, but I need to stay away from Wiki a bit. URDNEXT (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

edit
Since URDNEXT appears to have retired, and so many problems with the article remain, I suggest that the nomination be withdrawn by User:Tezero or User:Czar. I don't see much hope for this thing. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm fine with that if czar is. I've never been especially attached to this subject like URDNEXT presumably has, and I've got plenty else to be focusing on both on- and off-wiki, like a GAN dating back to late July and a Data Structures test in two days. As soon as URDNEXT does return, though, I'm available to help once more. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame though because this has only been open for ten days and there was still the possibility of it passing eventually. It would have been difficult, with 3 opposes needing to change including my own, but not impossible. Hope to see you back on the site soon URDNEXT. Unless Czar steps in, there's nothing else that can be done to rescue the article, and this nom should be archived. CR4ZE (t • c) 00:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the assessment is fair. I don't think the article was ready for FAC, which descended into a full-scale cleanup and peer review (which is an admirable collaboration in some ways, but also so far from what FAC is supposed to be). It's a shame it had to get to this point, though, and a shame it ended so explosively. I'm sure subsequent maintainers of this article will very much appreciate the contributions from the past few days. czar ♔ 14:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FAC really isn't the place for copyedits by multiple editors; I hope y'all can get together with URDNEXT to improve the article but any rescue efforts should take place outside this process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with those who have commented at this FAC. I think it's a shame though that this is all we can manage after so much work has been done on the article in the last weeks. Would it be better to relist in a couple of weeks, or to unarchive with a new nominator? I feel the article is now very close to the requisite standard. --John (talk) 17:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very happy to see this back at FAC when you guys are satisfied it's up to scratch, but let's observe the usual two-week period from archive to new nom (starting as of yesterday when I closed it). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Sleeping_Dogs_(video_game)/archive1&oldid=1138471617"