Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tecmo Cup Football Game/archive1

Tecmo Cup Football Game edit

Self-nomination. An one-man effort on a rare Sega Genesis game.
This article has already been on;

Peer Review (with a grand total of no comments),
CVG Peer Review (with a whopping 1 comment).

Taking the silence to be a sign of satisfaction, i'm nominating it here. Please bear in mind that this game is extremely rare, and only 4 sites even mention it. This accounts for the short number of references and external links. LordViD 19:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor object. Several problems with the style and wikification. This article doesn't entirely comply with WP:MOS. Several basic dictionary words such as success are linked for no reason. Trivia section is too short, as a two item list. Fair use images do not have fair use rationales. Very good effort though, and I'll support when the things I've mentioned are fixed. — Wackymacs 19:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the irrelevant links and added the fair use rationale to the images. What do you suggest should be done with the trivia section? Should it be merged with other sections or removed completely? Also, you mentioned that this article doesn't comply with the MOS. Any specific points?LordViD 19:57, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Though this might sound like nitpicking - the References section should not use small size type for just three references, and should be placed before the External links section. The External links section should also read External links, not External Links (this is mentioned in the manual of style, I believe). I suggest you merge the Trivia section into another section. — Wackymacs 20:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There, all done. Will you support now? Pretty please? :) Thanks for the comments. LordViD 20:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Though I hate to say this, there is one thing still keeping me from Supporting this article. There are possibly too many sub-sections, because each section should ideally be two/three paragraphs long according to guidelines, and short sections look bad. I suggest that you remove the sub-sections. — Wackymacs 20:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too many sub-sections? I can only see one, which is the Guts system section. I've merged the content and removed it. All other sections are over two/three paragraphs long. Perhaps you are also referring to the Characters section? But doesn't the table compensate for that? LordViD 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks pretty good, though someone else might have objections that I haven't noticed. I might also note, I changed the HTML table into a Wikitable because it uses simpler syntax and looks better. — Wackymacs 21:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for taking the time to review the article :-) LordViD 21:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Theres just not enough there for me to support. 2 of the references are to GameFaq walkthrough/reviews, there really is absolutely no point in referencing a gameFaq review. Anyone can write them, they're not professional in the slightest. I mentioned in some music FACs that we should have mainstream reviews for them over internet ones, and it applies here. You say its a rare game, and I'm sure it would be near impossible for you to find some published critical feedback for the thing, but still it stands. Also, on googling the thing and looking around, it seems that there was a NES version of this game released called "Tecmo Cup Soccer Game", which isn't even mentioned. - Hahnchen 23:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the gamefaqs review reference, and added info on the NES version. LordViD 12:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object -- The article doesn't do enough to put this game in a larger context of Sega Genesis games and soccer games. Of course, because of the relative rarity of the game, some of this information may not exist. I think that, at minimum, I'd like to see --

Historical context. Are sports games common? Were they common in 1992? Was this a popular sport at the time, particularly in these countries? You could have a section that goes into more detail about the success of Captain Tsubasa games, the article doesn't explain what "Captian Tsubasa" was. Are these kind of "clone" games common?
Impact of the game on the genre. In this case, you might mostly be talking about the *lack* of impact. You might be able to cite poor sales figures, a lack of published references, lack of marketing on the part of the publisher. Even if the game was published with no impact whatsoever on anyone, there should probably be a section mentioning this, with references.

On a side note, the sidebar mentions that this was published only in Europe? If so, you might want to mention that in the text, perhaps in the first paragraph. -- Creidieki 00:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All valid points, but what you're asking is impossible. The internet has proved useless for me when writing about this game, however, i'll try as much as I can to incorporate all your points. In the meantime, I can clearly see that this article is going nowhere but to the trash heap. LordViD 10:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not to the trash heap! not every article can become featured because, in this case, the subject is very rare and difficult to write a lot about. Its a good article, but I doubt it will get the featured article status. — Wackymacs 10:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure the internet has been next to useless in searching for references to this game. But since when were featured articles just a collection of all the things found on the internet. It might be impossible for you, but for me, a featured article on a computer game should have a critical reaction section with reviews from popular gaming magazines and possibly sales figures. I mean heck, I'm finding it a hard time looking for magazine reviews of games that came out in 1998, let alone 1992, but still. - Hahnchen 14:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry if my comments seemed harsh; I hope that you won't be discouraged by them. I believe that this article could become a featured article, and I trying to give suggestions for how to flesh it out. My first request was for a History section, to tell the reader about the status of Sports games in 1992, and other related issues. That section wouldn't need to have information specific to this game -- it just needs to *set the stage* for the game. The reader probably isn't a sports video game fan living in 1992, so you can get a lot of milage with "obvious" statements like "Sports video games have been one of the most popular genres since the beginning of video games, and in 1992 were the second-most-popular genre after Action" (or something like that, I just made that up). Wikipedia might have most of this information already.

And my second suggestion was, if there was no effort to promote the game on the publisher's part, try to mention that...Your local librarian (public, school, or university) can help you find any magazines of that time period with reviews of the game, and can probably get copies sent to you, quite possibly for free; one or two of those would go a long way towards supporting a section that says, "This game was poorly received and had little impact on the industry.".

So I *do* believe that you can have a Featured Article on a topic like this. At the moment, the article is too short and doesn't cover all of its bases, and it'll probably take several hours of research to get it there. But I disagree with Wackymacs; I tend to think that every article can become featured. -- Creidieki 06:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments weren't harsh in anyway. All you say is completely true. But I think you severely underestimate the rarity of this game. I've looked everywhere; books, magazines, the internet. No luck. This wasn't a game that made any news, top ten lists, or even got reviewed. It's as if it didn't exist. As you and the others have pointed out, a game article could never be featured without proper sections about its impact, critical acclaim etc., and so I'm withdrawing the nomination. LordViD 08:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]