Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tales of Monkey Island/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 promoted by Laser brain 16:55, 8 February 2011 [1].

---

Tales of Monkey Island

Tales of Monkey Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Tales of Monkey Island/archive1

Nominator(s): Sabre (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been at this article for a while, and I think its time to give it a shot at the big apple. I'm confident it meets the criteria. The article has received a peer review, and was extensively copyedited by JimmyBlackwing, to whom I am eternally grateful. There are, however, two points I'm going to bring into the open to address immediately.

• There's a number of less traditional sources in use in the reception section—smaller, less well known outfits—since this game was passed over by the review machines of significant amount of the mainstream sources, most likely due to its indy development-like nature. As a result, its been necessary to draw on these less conventional reviews to build the reception section and to compensate for the deficit in mainstream coverage. All sources are as a minimum certified by GameRankings and/or Metacritic, and I'm confident that they qualify as reliable sources.

• There are four dead links, all to a site called Mixnmojo. They suffered a hacking incident a few years back and lost all their meaningful content; as a result the site is now a shadow of its former self and I've not had much luck finding suitable replacements for them. There's nothing in the FAC criteria about dead links, so I've followed WP:LINKROT's advice to simply retain them, to show the information was at least once verifiable. In accordance with WP:LINKROT, they are labelled with {{deadlink}}.

I'll be glad to have a go at fixing any issues reviewers may have with the article. Thanks, Sabre (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment. This is purely in response to the commments about linkrot—I haven't read the article (by the way, I assume you've tried archives for the site?). If a replacement cannot be immediately found, then my understanding of Wikipedia:LINKROT#Keeping_dead_links is that we should keep the links in the hope that it helps us find proper verification in the future. It is not meant to be the long-term solution. Even if we feel that new references could be found (which doesn't seem hugely likely in this case), then at present it still fails 1c. The information supported by the dead links is not "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". This simply cannot pass with information in the article which is entirely unverifiable. In my view, you must either find alternative sources, find copies of the originals, or remove the information which is cited to these sources. Trebor (talk) 02:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Trebor on this point, simply because Mixnmojo wasn't the most reliable source to begin with and there's no offline access. Plain removing the information would be painful, but luckily it's not relied on so heavily as to compromise the article's comprehensiveness, in my opinion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • That's not been my interpretation of LINKROT, but since three people have just effectively told me the same thing, I'll do another sweep to try to replace the sources. I'd also dispute Mixnmojo not being reliable, but that point is moot if we need to replace all uses with working ones that will have to be from elsewhere. Watch this space. -- Sabre (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The dead links are no longer an issue. I had a bit more luck finding replacements than the last few times I tried. Three dead links have been replaced by alternative references, though I had to remove the fourth and its accompanying point entirely as I couldn't find that information anywhere else. -- Sabre (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Images What information is contained in File:Morgan_and_Guybrush.jpg, that is not contained in File:Tales_of_Monkey_Island_artwork.jpg, File:Guybrush_Threepwood_TMI_concepts.jpg is used as "an example of communication", I don't think non-free images are required to convey the idea of communication. File:DeSinge's_Lab.jpg is used to show 3D graphics, and I would imagine if that is required then there is free 3D graphics out there, as for the comparison between the two images, I think this is a matter of undue weight.File:Dominic_Armato.jpg could be cropped to align the actor in the centre of the image. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • File:Morgan_and_Guybrush.jpg isn't used as "an example of communication", I never used any phrase like that in either the fair use rationale or the caption so I don't know where you got that idea. Its there to show final character design of two of characters with critical coverage and to show the increased use of cinematography over previous TTG's games. To be honest it doesn't do the second particularly well, and it is the easily the weakest of all the images, so I'll happily ditch it if that's not thought sufficient reason. As for File:DeSinge's_Lab.jpg, you cannot create a free image that directly shows demonstrates the full in-game art style and how it compared with the original 2D concepts, and if I remove the weaker File:Morgan_and_Guybrush.jpg, then File:DeSinge's_Lab.jpg becomes the only in-game screenshot in the article; having one image displaying the final design running in the game engine is an vital part of any video game article for providing a visual reference for the various bits discussed in the development section. The art style and the 2D/3D stuff are all covered in the article, so this image is relevant. -- Sabre (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Oppose Inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Thats not very helpful. I've tried above to clarify the use of the images in reply to your comment; it would be far more beneficial to actually explain why you think my reasoning is wrong than simply stating "inappropriate use". EDIT: Just realised I've misread part of your original comment, thinking that the "example of communciation" business was in relation to the now removed File:Morgan_and_Guybrush.jpg when it wasn't. I apologise for that mixup. -- Sabre (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Fasach opposes more-or-less on principle. Don't sweat it; most FAC nominators just ignore him. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Delegates don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
            • I was merely reporting a fact; I have seen several promoted FACs whose nominators ignored Fasach, on the grounds that his opposition was not actionable or within policy. He's not satisfied until all—or almost all—fair use images are removed from an article. Personally, I found Sabre's explanations and compromises to be perfectly fine, and, in light of them, I don't think it's reasonable for Fasach to continue opposing the nomination. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Per Sandy's request, I am here to offer another opinion.
    • File:DeSinge's Lab.jpg

    This image is supposed to show how a 2D conception was transformed into 3D; however, this is not talked about in the article. The closest thing about a 2D-3D translation in the article is about combining the styles of the first three Monkey Island games into a 3D form (what is there in this image that is supposed to be from the earlier games?). An image on its own to illustrate a concept is unlikely to be justifiable because of WP:NFCC #8 (contextual significance).

    This image can be replaced with an in-game screenshot if the intent is to "[depict] the gameplay of the game in a visual form, and gives the reader an understanding of how the final art direction looks in-game far better than any text equivalent." Seeing a static shot of a laboratory without characters or how the game is played does not add to the understanding of the gameplay. Replaced by File:Tales of Monkey Island ship battle.jpg, which seems fine to me

    • File:Guybrush Threepwood TMI concepts.jpg

    This does not really "display an example of the communication between LucasArts and Telltale Games" to me. It is just a comparison between the original design (sketch) and silhouette of final implementation. One issue to me is that the differences between the designs are slight; furhtermore the article has no significant content about this image (the changing appearance of Threepwood) that would necessitate illustration.

  I believe a screenshot of the game in motion (with characters, control schemes in action) would be a more helpful illustration than these two at the moment. Jappalang (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd argue that the last paragraph of Design establishes enough content to warrant the Guybrush concept image, but I'll leave it up to Sabre. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I've done. I've ditched the concept/ingame comparison image, and replaced it with a screenshot of the opening ship battle scene, the one that's cited as being key in the creation of a cinematic director. That satisfies WP:NFCC#8 in my mind, especially when one considers it also provides a snapshot at the art direction and the pointy-clicky gameplay mechanics in the final thing, though the caption analyses it from the cinematography perspective. The image also lacks the baggage of being two non-free images packaged into one file (raising issues with WP:NFCC#3a), as the other one was.

As far as the other image goes, I've redone the caption and had a shot at redoing the rationale, and asked someone better experienced than me to look over and strengthen the rationale for that, because I frankly suck at writing decent rationales. I still maintain that this image's use is justified, the caption now tries to provide a bit better insight into the image's importance. The image isn't so much about the evolution of the character, though that is a factor, as it is more about LucasArts' control over art direction. The changes shown in the image may appear minor, but they are important. As Jimmy says above, the relevant paragraph for that image is the final one of the design section, and I've added to that to provide more context within article content. I wouldn't really feel comfortable removing the image entirely, not after several other reviewers have already given their affirmation to the non-free content, so I'm working on the basis of preserving and strengthening its usage. -- Sabre (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As explained, my issue with the Threepwood design is that the article had little commentary that was of the image. The recent changes alleviated a measure of this concern, but like I said, I am not certain if the little changes in the character design (in my view) warrant an image to help readers understand them. In light of the recent changes in the article text,[2] my concerns might be marginal. In matters about NFCC, a degree of subjectivity is usually involved. Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support: As mentioned above, I copyedited the article; however, I believe that I am not so invested in it that I cannot properly review it. The images are excellently used; the sources are largely solid, and the shakier ones are defensible; the prose satisfies 1a, in my opinion; and, finally, the article is thoroughly comprehensive. The dead links were my last remaining concern, but they have been dealt with. This article is definitely FA material. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment "Following the game's announcement at E3 2009, IGN named it the "Biggest Surprise" of the convention." Overall games are here [3], so I believe IGN is being platform-specific. « ₣M₣ » 00:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Good catch, I never noticed that. Clarified in the text. -- Sabre (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links; about a dozen external redirects which I did not fix as they were too numerous. It's mainly the metacritic ones, though there are several others. Use the external link checker in the upper right corner of this page to see them. --PresN 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - it's generally a good read, and I'm really interested in the game now. If I had a Wii, I would probably get it! Only a few minor things before I'm ready to support.
• It is the fifth game in the Monkey Island series; it succeeds Escape from Monkey Island, released nearly a decade earlier.
  • The wording could be improved/streamlined here (two usages of "it"), and it should be clarified that "Escape from Monkey Island" was the one released earlier (the current wording could mean either "it" or "Escape" was released).
• It was developed concurrently with LucasArts' special edition of the 1990 title The Secret of Monkey Island; LucasArts oversaw production of Tales of Monkey Island, and ensured that it matched the remake in certain areas, such as art direction.
  • IDK, I feel the writing could be better, since LucasArts is mentioned in both clauses.
• Another quibble in the lede - it doesn't really cover the whole plot. It just says the one character seeks out the artifact. Seeing as the lede should be a summary, it should cover a complete summary of the plot.
• Could you provide a brief summary what a "graphic adventure game" is?
• Sorta minimal, but is there an example of two items being combined to make a new one?
• "use the WASD keys" - I had to read that twice... is there any way you could explain to what WASD is?
• "hidden treasure. Found treasures" - could you rewrite so the word "treasure" isn't used twice in three words?
• "To access this mode, the player must locate maps on the Internet, such as on the official Telltale website." - are there any other maps on the Internet other than their site?
• You shouldn't link Guybrush so many times.
• Could you get a source for the last paragraph of "Setting and characters"? Likewise with the second to last paragraph of "Design"?
• "and escapes with DeCava to the location of La Esponja Grande. After retrieving La Esponja Grande" - similar to above, but could you find a way to cut down on redundancies?
• "As Morgan reluctantly delivers Guybrush to de Singe, he is seized by the townspeople " - it is unclear who "he" is
• "While no figures for the game have been released" - that was as of late 2009. Surely, there have been figures released over a year later?
• Was there any overall reception (other than awards)?

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

• • As the article's copyeditor, I feel compelled to defend the (completely intentional) use of repetition. I dislike writing that constantly changes its terminology simply to avoid being repetitive; I believe that this technique significantly hampers readability, and comes off as unprofessional. Repetition simplifies, clarifies and invigorates, while constant changes to terminology often create writing that is long-winded, vague and dull. Obviously, this is merely a matter of opinion—mine against yours—but that's what I'm getting at: it's a matter of opinion. Even if we should disagree on this point forever, it would have no bearing on this nomination, as Wikipedia does not discriminate against interpretations of FA criterion 1a. Basically, unless other reviewers agree with you, I don't think it's worthwhile to change from one such interpretation to another. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • While too much change in terminology can hamper the writing, I believe that too much repetition likewise hampers the writing, but I won't complain too much about it. My concerns would then be the lede not covering the plot, what "graphic adventure game" is, the two items becoming one, WASD, Internet maps other than from Telltale, a source for the last paragraph of "Settings and characters", clarifying the sentence I mentioned, and (ideally if you can find them) updated sales figures. I just noticed something else. You don't mention once, in the prose of the article, that the game was ever released for PS network or the iPad, even though it's in the Infobox and lede. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I've dealt with a few from the list. I've added a wikilink to WASD that should clear that up for anyone unfamiliar with the term, cut back the number of Guybrush wikilinks to two (one in lead, other used in context in "setting"), added the non-official site sources for the treasure maps, added a ref for the plot background in last paragraph of "setting" and restructured the "10 years after Escape" sentence in the lead and clarified the sentence in "plot" you were concerned about. In regard to the PSN and iPad releases, PSN is already covered in the article (final paragraph of production), I've added the details of the iPad port into the same paragraph. As for the plot, I think what we've got is sufficient in the lead. Those two sentences effectively summarise the overarching plot line for the game—its no more than is done in all recent video game articles that passed FAC—while the table later on provides quickfire summaries for individual episodes. I think adding more to that will make the lead a bit unwieldy. I'll get onto dealing with the remaining points soon. -- Sabre (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • Apologies for the couple of days absence. I've redone the wording slightly in the gameplay section regarding what a graphic adventure game is. I'm hoping that's sufficient, I don't really know what else I can add to that description of the genre but I'm open to any ideas. An example of item combination from the first episode has also been thrown into the section. -- Sabre (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
        • Ack, sry, I forgot about this FAC while focusing on my own. About the plot, yea, that's fine. It really shouldn't be too much, in general, and I think you have the right amount. As for the redundancies, I'm not too worried about it, come to think of it All in all, I am much happier. Thank you all for addressing my comments, and I'm happy to give it my full support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Regarding the last two points. Some video game developers publish their sales figures, others don't. Telltale Games, for whatever reason, chooses not to make their sales figures public for their games. Annoying though it is, all we've got to go on as far as sales go is their fairly generic "it did very well by our standards" statement, rather than any solid figures. In regards to overall reception, there's a surprising lack of coverage. GameRankings, for instance, only lists three reviews of the whole thing for PC, and I'd only feel comfortable using the GameSpot review in the article (GameSpot never reviewed the individual episodes like others did, rather they just did an all-encompassing one at the end). I can't find any such reviews for the Wii, the other primary platform. You can't really gauge the critical view of the game as a whole on one reliable source and two questionable ones. I'll have a shot at the rest of your points a bit later. -- Sabre (talk) 12:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Did you ever ask me to go hunting for sources on my databases? I can't remember... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I got the postmortem development source from you, so I'm guessing I must have. -- Sabre (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
        • I'll go back and check. Given that there's not much online I'm expecting there wouldn't be too much else, but I'll try and check again this week just in case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, you'll have to sift through it, but I've sent two batches of PDFs with possible sources (the GD article's in their again, ignore that one.) to the hotmail account I had on file. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
            • Woah, that's quite a collection you've got there! I'm sure there'll be useful stuff in some of those. At the very least, I can use some of the newspaper reviews to bolster the reception section. -- Sabre (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
              • I've finally finished going through the sources and added the more useful ones into the article. None of the newspaper reviews really say anything that different from what's already in the reception section, but I've integrated a few of the more substantive newspaper reviews into the reception section. I've also added points from the most useful source—an interview conducted by the Guardian—into the development section. Unfortunately, a lot of the larger file was repeats of the same article printed in different newspapers of the same media group, and lists of "on this day, these games were released". All the same, thanks for getting hold of those David. -- Sabre (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
                • No problem. Glad some could be of help. I'll try and take a look at the article today or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support (disclosure, I participated in the PR) I think that it has greatly improved, and the current selection of images meet NFCC. I do not have any qualms about comprehensiveness as all aspects of the topic are appropriately addressed. I went through and did a few prose tweaks, nothing major. One thing I noticed, however, is that there's an occasional point where quotations are framed with present tense, e.g., "Person X says the collaboration...". I changed a few, but if there are any others they should really all be switched to past tense. Other than that, good work. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just a few minor remarks I have after going through the text:

• "While those games feature entirely 2D graphics"

I would change the "2D" to "two-dimensional" here because "entirely 2D" sounds a little awkward if pronounced like that.

• "are entirely oriented toward 3D graphics development"

Possibly replace "entirely" here since it's been used only a sentence before.

• "About.com considered the series to be the second best Wii game of the year"

Possibly replace "series" here (perhaps with "season") since it's been used only a sentence before in a different context.

• Some verbs use American English ("tantalize"), others use British English ("criticise").
• "Very few environmental resources were reused between episodes, and the developers removed the central hubs and "comfort zones" that were present in [...]"

I don't understand that sentence. If I had to make a guess, I'd say a central hub is a location or an overworld map from which the individual locations in a game can be reached (like Peach's Castle in Super Mario 64), but I don't know what it means if that's the case, and – as someone who hasn't played any other Telltale games – I have absolutely no idea what a "comfort zone" is. An explanation would help here, I think.

Support: Other than that, I would give the article a support since it meets all the criteria: the prose is comprehensive and of high quality, all non-free images have a strong fair-use rationale and caption, all the MoS guidelines are fulfilled from what I've seen, and sources are either primary in nature or from reliable publications. Prime Blue (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've dealt with those minor issues, and I've redone the bit on central hubs. Hopefully that should better explain the central hub business. That definitely needed redoing if the sentence made you reach the conclusion that it was talking about an overworld map, which is way off the mark! What it meant was that past TTG games used a consistent set of locations as a "base of operations" for the player in each episode, such as each episode of Sam & Max usually starting in or around their office. TMI, however, doesn't do that, the character is always on the move into new locales, so players won't be familiar with the environments of each subsequent episode. -- Sabre (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Read the new version without your extra explanation here and understood it this time. Great work on the article! :-) Prime Blue (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Comments - looking over now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

:the "Cursed Cutlass of Kaflu" - does this need to be in quotes? I'd have thought ok without.

"'was in retirement - sounds odd, why not "had retired from acting" or something.

Otherwise looking good from a prose and comprehensiveness angle..Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've dealt with those two prose issues. -- Sabre (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Support - with regard to Criterion 1a only, I do not feel qualified to comment on the others. Graham Colm (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

• The prose looks good to me. I made a few tweaks here and there as I read.
• I think the use of non-free images is fine and meets NFCC.
• I think File:Guybrush Threepwood TMI concepts.jpg and File:Dominic Armato cropped.jpg should be moved to better align with the prose they refer to.
  • The concepts should be moved down four paragraphs.
  • The Armaot should be moved down one and left aligned.
• I'm not familiar with the below sources. Could you provide some rationales for their reliability?
  • N-Europe
  • WiiChat.com
  • Bit-tech
  • SPUDVISION
  • GDN Network
  • Gaming Trend
  • HonestGamers
  • GameCritics
  • MyGamer
  • Gaming Nexus

Other than that, I think the article is in good shape. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

I'm rubbish at creating source rationales, so bear with me:

• N-Europe and WiiChat have been replaced, I'd forgot to get rid of those when better sources emerged. Both were used to reference two release dates for the PAL release of the Wii version. I'd prefer to reference Nintendo or TTG for these, but they've been inconsistent in producing statements regarding the dates for the PAL Wii version.
• Bit-tech is an online computer technology and games magazine run by Dennis Publishing. Some of their background is on their about page. There's some evidence for it being cited as a source in a number of related books in the industry.
• SPUDVISION is the personal blog of Steve Purcell, who drew the game's cover art. The source is used to reference Purcell's own thoughts on doing the artwork. I suppose that makes it a primary source.
• The remaining ones are all the less mainstream sources I referred to at the beginning of the page. All are accepted as valid reviewers by CBS Interactive's Metacritic and GameRankings and contribute to the scores that these aggregators assign to games. Due to a shortfall in critical reception from the usual mainstream review suspects, its been necessary to draw on these to help build the reception section. Had the game acquired more reviews from the mainstream video games sources I wouldn't be using them, but since we usually use these aggregator sites to gauge the overall critical view, I thought it prudent to use some of the same secondary sources to make up the shortfall. -- Sabre (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor support: I'm not crazy about the use of such sources, but I know others at FAC have allowed them for opinion purposes only, which is a reasonable expectation. I believe everything else (including the images) meets the criteria. Good job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC))

WITHDRAW. One section is so full of citations it is impossible to read. This is taking "scholarship" to the extreme. It doesn't work, it's unprofessional, and impedes the flow of the prose. Fails to meet FA criteria 1(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard. Sample: "episode's writing received near unanimous praise,[123][126][127][129][130] and response to the supporting cast was much improved over the preceding episodes;[124][129] praise centered particularly around Murray, a demonic, disembodied skull.[123][124][125][128] Criticism of "Lair of the Leviathan" primarily focused on the chapter's brevity and lack of varied locations.[128][129][130]" WITHDRAW and clean this mess up. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Demanding a withdrawal is a little drastic. There is no guideline that dictates a specific number of references to follow a sentence or paragraph. And even if you do see it as a problem, this can be fixed easily with reference groups. Prime Blue (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just re-read the section, I've not really found the citations getting in the way except for in that bit that 56tyvfg88yju pointed to, that's the only part where it starts to get a bit excessive, but its still manageable. Given Prime Blue's above, I'm going to hold off implementing reference groups unless anyone else agrees, I'm concerned with how to deal with multiple uses of a single source without entirely repeating the full citation in each reference group; the current method avoids that particular concern. If I was using five or more citations in a row for most, I'd probably agree that reference groups were necessary, but the majority are only three in a row, which I think is still workable. -- Sabre (talk) 09:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(Off-topic discussion moved from project page) --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• Image concerns are holding up this nomination currently. Unresolved concerns from two separate image reviewers above—this needs attention. --Andy Walsh (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Fasach's review was inherently biased; it's impossible to meet his demands without removing nearly every image from an article. His issue is with Wikipedia's image policies, but he takes it out on people at FAC. In my experience, he and other editors who do that have been ignored, which I believe is the correct course of action. As for Jappalang, he said that Sabre's changes made the inclusion of the character concept image a matter of opinion, rather than a clear-cut problem. I don't really understand which concern Sabre hasn't addressed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd mostly agree with Jimmy. Given the changes made in response to Jappalang's review (which was requested by Sandy) resulted in Jappalang considering remaining concerns as probably marginal, and that it came down to a subjective intepretation of the NFCC. With the removal or replacement of two non-free images in relation to Jappalang's review, at least some aspects of Fasach's more hardline view have been dealt with. Add the fact that at least three other reviewers gave their assent to the images, I've been treating the image concerns as dealt with. -- Sabre (talk) 00:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
      • OK, thanks for the replies. I was reading Jappalang's last comment that he still disagreed with its use, but I see where he seems to give over that it is a subjective matter. --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Design comparison: tiny image with intricate detail (and a humungous caption): so why not center it and enlarge significantly? Not enough use is made of this solution, IMO. See if you like it. I still think some of the caption could be reframed as part of the main text.
  • I can see where you're coming from, and how that approach would be useful in certain cases, but I don't think this is one of them. If there was three or four paragraphs focused entirely on the one character's design, centering it like that would work. In this case, however, it completely hijacks the attention of the reader for something that is discussed primarily in as single paragraph and on and off in few other places in the section, putting more weight on the image than it is definitely due (especially when the debate on the image thusfar has been whether it should be used at all). I've put it back as the right-aligned image, though at the larger size you set. As for the caption, its drawn from what's in the text already, so it can't really be added to the article body. -- Sabre (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• I see that Giant Bomb is being used as a source for release dates. I don't have a problem with the review, but the release dates are part of Giant Bomb's user-contributed wiki database and shouldn't be used. Reach Out to the Truth 01:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
  • They are? I thought they were part of the site-produced content, not the user content. My mistake, they've been replaced. Its been a nightmare trying to find decent secondary sources for two of the Wii PAL release dates, since TTG never did their own news post on either. -- Sabre (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
    • When logged into the site, each release has an edit link next to it. But I see that those links aren't present when logged out, so it's not obvious that it is user content. I'll raise this issue on the site and see if they can make it more clear. Reach Out to the Truth 15:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

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