Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Last of Us/archive2

< 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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2016 [1].

The Last of Us edit

Nominator(s): – the editor formerly known as Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of Us is a 2013 video game, developed by Naughty Dog and published by Sony Computer Entertainment. The game's four-year development was significantly documented, which led to a wide anticipation for its release. It became one of the most acclaimed video games, earning over 240 Game of the Year awards. It is highly regarded as one of the greatest video games of all time. I've been working on this article a lot over the past year or so, and I now feel satisfied that it is well-written, and sufficiently meets the featured article criteria. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 05:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo edit

Here's what I see

Lead

  • The box art needs an alt text.
  • Players control Joel, a man tasked with escorting the young Ellie... by saying "the young Ellie", your assuming readers already know who Ellie is. Introduce her as "a young girl named Ellie", the same way you introduced Joel.
  • players use firearms, improvised weapons and stealth to defend against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures... Really nitpicking at this one, but when stealth is mentioned, its almost as if your saying stealth can be used as a physical weapon like guns. Maybe reword that? If you don't agree, that's fine, like I said, really nitpicky.
  • Players can also upgrade weapons and items using items scavenged from the environment. items is used twice and almost back-to-back in the same sentence. Reword the sentence or replace one of the items with another word.

Gameplay

  • Players traverse post-apocalyptic environments, moving through locations to advance through the game's story. I feel locations is a bit too general, since they go through buildings, houses, sewers, etc.
  • Players use firearms, improvised weapons and stealth, defending against hostile humans and zombie-like creatures... If you changed it in the lead, change it here. If not, ignore this and move on.
  • Players also control Ellie and Sarah throughout the game's winter segment and prologue, respectively. I know this having played the game, but from a casual reader's viewpoint, who's Sarah?
  • In combat, players can use long-ranged weapons such as rifles, shotguns and bows, and short-barreled guns such as pistols and revolvers Link long-ranged weapons, and short barreled guns, though I couldn't find an article for short barreled guns, so link what you please there. I wouldn't recommend linking the actual guns though, as it could get pretty crowded with links.
  • Physical abilities, such as the health bar and crafting speed Link health bar, since that's pretty much a gamer only term.
  • Equipment such as health kits and Molotov cocktails can be found or crafted using collected items. Wouldn't this part go better with the crafting sentence? Besides, the previous sentence mentions how you can use health kits to heal, and then its explained how to make health kits, which seems weird.
  • Players solve simple puzzles, by using floating pallets to move Ellie, who is unable to swim, across bodies of water, and using ladders or dumpsters to reach higher areas. This is a hard cut from periods with combat, and kind of caught me off guard. Try opening the sentence with "During these periods, players may have to solve simple puzzles..."
  • Players' companions, such as Ellie or Tess... Once again, who's Tess?
  • In every mode, players select a Faction—Hunters or Fireflies While I guess this is fine, since you introduce them as factions, you may want explain a bit more about each group, since they're both important to the singleplayer. Also, why are faction and hunters capitalized? Fireflies is fine since that's there name.

There's just some initial comments for now. Will take a full look later, but so far, very good job. Famous Hobo (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Famous Hobo! I've gone through and fixed most of your concerns. However, I was confused as to what you mean by "Link long-ranged weapons", since I could find no article on the subject. In addition, the capitalisation of Hunters and Fireflies is also present in the source, which I followed. Let me know if I missed anything from above, and I look forward to seeing more comments. Thanks again! – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 02:10, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's continue. Just as a side note, I'm doing this during classes, so my editing schedule is rather all over the place. My apologies for such disjointed comments.

Plot

  • In 2013, an outbreak of a mutant Cordyceps fungus ravages the United States, transforming its human hosts into cannibalistic monsters. Cordyceps is already linked in the lead and gameplay, so unlink it here. Also, in the lead and gameplay, you call the enemies zombie-like, but in this section you call them cannibalistic monsters. Pick one and stick with it.
  • Link Pittsburgh and Salt Lake City the first time each are mentioned, since you linked Austin and Wyoming. Also, any particular reason you mention the state Austin is located in, and not Pittsburgh or Salt Lake?
  • Ellie expresses her survivor guilt and asks Joel to swear that his story is true; he does. I'm a little uneasy about saying Ellie has survivor guilt. It's implied at the end by her facial expression, but it's never explicitly stated, which might border on original research. If Ellie does state this, that's fine, but if not, you may want to reword this sentence.

Development

  • This is presented in a scene in which Joel and Ellie discover a herd of giraffes, which concept artist John Sweeney explained was designed to "reignite [Ellie's] lust for life", having suffered following her encounter with David. This may just be me, but what suffered? Ellie or her lust for life, or both. You may want to rephrase that to better explain the significance of the scene.
  • This minimalist approach was also taken with the game's sound design and art design. Remove the design after sound.
  • The sound department began working early on the sound of the Infected, in order to achieve the best work possible. This is a really awkward sentence, thanks in part to the double use of sound and work.
  • Unlink Pittsburgh, as it should be linked in the Plot section.
  • The art department were forced to fight for things that they wished to include, due to the high demand during development. Replace fight with negotiate, sounds more encyclopedic. Also, could you go into just a little more detail about the high demand? What was demanded of them?
  • The team created new engines to satisfy their needs for the game. Link to game engines, as most casual readers will not know what a game engine is.
  • Downloadable content (DLC) for the game was released for the game following its launch. Repetition of for the game. Simple mistake.
  • The Sights and Sounds Pack included the soundtrack, a dynamic theme and two avatars. Was the dynamic theme for the home screen on the PS3? And where would the player be able to use the avatars (I'm an Xbox gamer, so I don't know a whole lot about the PlayStation, but on Xbox, players can customize their home screen with different themes, and players are given a virtual avatar they can customize. Does the PS3 have something like this?)
  • Sony announced The Last of Us Remastered, an improved version of the game for the PlayStation 4. It was released on July 29, 2014 in North America.[54][a] Remastered features improved enhanced graphics... In the first sentence, changed improved to enhanced, and in third sentence, remove the enhanced.

Reception

  • The word found is used 12 times, felt is used 14 times, in the Critical reception section alone, so you should try to limit the excessive use of that word.
  • In the second to last paragraph of Critical reception, Oli Welsh, Andy Kelly, Matt Helgeson, and Richard Mitchell all have their full name, but it should be kept to simply their last names, to keep in line with the rest of the section.
  • Sam Einhorn of GayGamer.net felt that the revelation of Bill's sexuality "added to his character ... without really tokenizing him". Why does Bill need to be linked here? Since he was already mentioned in the plot, he should be linked their, if you want to link his character. If you do this, then you need to link Tess, Henry and Sam, Marlene, etc.
  • A kiss between two female characters in Left Behind was met with positive reactions. You should go into more detail about this, such as who was it (it feels a little random saying two female characters) and why was it positively received, in the same fashion Bill's sexuality was described.
  • Prior to its release, it received numerous awards for its previews at E3 I feel this should go before everything in this section, since it's sandwiched in between the highest rated games of the year by MC and GR, and all the year-end lists.
  • Baker won an award from Hardcore Gamer,[143] while Johnson won awards at the British Academy Video Games Awards,[114] and DICE Awards,[120] and from The Daily Telegraph. Did Baker seriously just win an award with no description? Like, Best voice actor? Same goes for Johnson.
  • Naughty Dog won Studio of the Year and Best Developer from Cheat Code Central,[139] The Daily Telegraph,[118] Edge,[155] the Golden Joystick Awards[140] and Hardcore Gamer. This is almost word for word of what is in the first paragraph of the Awards section.
  • At IGN's Best of 2013 Awards... What makes the IGN awards more special that it deserves its own line?

Adaptations and possible sequel

  • The comics serve as a prequel to the game, chronicling the journey of a younger Ellie and another young survivor Riley. As Riley was already mentioned in the Left Behind section as being Ellie's friend, you can just simply call her Riley instead of another young survivor.
  • On March 6, 2014, Sony announced that Screen Gems will distribute a film adaptation of The Last of Us, written by Neil Druckmann and produced by Sam Raimi. Remove Druckmann's first name.

Alright, that's it. All that's left is the refs section, which I'll take a look at soon, but I can tell you that ref 115 needs to be fixed, and ref 103 needs the publisher part fixed.

Thanks, Famous Hobo. I fixed your remaining issues. In regards to the reception of the kiss in Left Behind: this is explored in more detail in the article about the DLC, which is why it was only touched on briefly in here; if you think it should be removed, let me know. As for the references: I'm not sure why the URL for reference 115 isn't being accepted, but there's nothing wrong it as far as I can see (I don't think Wikipedia likes the "http://o.canada..." part). – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, sorry for a late response. So I did a small spotcheck of the refs, and everything came out good. The only remaining issue I have with the article is how Sarah and Tess are more or less thrown into the Gameplay section. When Sarah is mentioned as Joel's daughter, a casual reader will probably get confused, and ask why she doesn't play a big part in the game? Same goes for Tess, can you call to them at any point in the game for help? But they can be left if you want them. Other than that, everything else checks out. Very, very, nice article, it's pretty apparent just how much time and effort went into this, and after addressing all of my nagging issues, I can now safely give my Support. Congrats . Famous Hobo (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, Famous Hobo! I decided to remove any mention of Sarah and Tess from the Gameplay section altogether, as they're not really necessary, and only add confusion. I appreciate all of your comments. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jaguar edit

  • I noticed that the images in the gameplay section and the development section are missing alt texts
  • ""Listen mode" lets players locate enemies through a heightened sense" - minor, but I would personally change this to allows, as it may sound more encyclopaedic for the lead
  • "In Austin, Joel" - minor, but I would recommend Austin, Texas Disregard this as mentioned above
  • "The addition of Ellie as AI was a major contributor to the engine" - I think this should be fully written out as artificial intelligent, as it's prominent in the article
  • "The game missed its original projected release date of May 7, 2013, pushed back to June 14, 2013 to allow for further polishing" - this sentence could to with a conjunction. How about The game missed its original projected release date of May 7, 2013, as it was pushed back to June 14, 2013 to allow for further polishing
  • "Nightmare Bundle, released on November 5, 2013, added a collection of ten head items, nine of which are available to purchase individually" - so after purchasing the Nightmare Bundle, the player still has to buy the nine head items?
  • "early access to customizable items and brawler skill for the game's multiplayer" - what is the brawler skill?
  • "Mc Shea of GameSpot" - is this meant to be "McShea" or is this a pseudonym?
  • "It is one of the best-selling PlayStation 3 games" - this should start with As of 2014 or 2015? Feel free to ignore
  • "and the Spike VGX 2013" - why isn't this written out fully?
  • "but were interrupted when the whole team shifted development to Uncharted 4: A Thief's End (2016)" - might sound better as but were interrupted when the whole team shifted development to Uncharted 4: A Thief's End, which is scheduled for release in 2016

I'm sorry for coming late to this FAC, but as FamousHobo made a comprehensive review above, my review was slightly shortened due to various improvements already made. All in all, this is a great article! The work put into this has been impressive and admirable. No doubt I'll be support once all of the minor issues are out of the way. JAGUAR  17:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Jaguar! I've tried to address them all. Regarding Tom Mc Shea: that's how he spells his name, so that's how I wrote it in the article. Also, "Spike VGX" is the full name for the awards show. I should also let you know that the images aren't missing alt texts. Let me know if you have any remaining concerns. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing them! With all of my concerns addressed I'll be happy to support this now. I must have got confused with another website that uses pseudonyms. JAGUAR  16:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: Many thanks. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indopug edit

Comment since there's an article for the remaster, why mention its platform and release dates in the infobox here?—indopug (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: You bring up a good point. I want to bring up some other examples: Halo: Combat Evolved lists Xbox 360 and Xbox One in the "Platform(s)" parameter in the infobox, but does not list it in the "Release date(s)", whereas The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time does not mention the 3DS version at all. I initially followed the structure of the Grand Theft Auto V article, back when it had a separate article for the re-release, but that's an unusual case, since the re-release was the same game with the same title, and The Last of Us Remastered is different in that respect. Do you think the PlayStation 4 version should be removed from the infobox entirely, or excluded from "Release date(s)" only? – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 13:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine if you don't remove entirely it from the infobox, but definitely do from the Release date(s), which lists far too many for an infobox. (I edit music articles, and album infoboxes strictly require the earliest release date only—I think the same should apply for video games too)—indopug (talk) 19:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more points:

  • If you ctrl+F "game" on Firefox and hit highlight-all, you can see the word is overused throughout the article. It makes the prose repetitive and reduces readability. Other examples of repetitiveness: three paras in Critical response begin with "many reviewers" saying something about the game. The next three paras also begin very similarly.
  • When you 1) say that "The Last of Us is one of the most awarded games of all time, winning over 240 Game of the Year awards" and 2) have a separate article for the awards, listing out names of innumerable magazines and awards just makes the section thoroughly unreadable. Instead include some commentary on the glut of awards? What the developers had to say in reaction? As it stands the section is basically redundant to that first sentence.

Having a relook, I think the problems stem from the fact that Reception is so long. I believe its thirteen paragraphs can be cut down to five or six more concise ones (three for summarising reviews (whether it is any good or not?), and one each for sales and awards). A lot of the stuff (about violence and sexuality for starters) in Critical response should probably be split off into an Analysis/Themes section.—indopug (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback, Indopug.
  • You say that that the infobox lists "far too many" release dates, but with video games it's fairly common to list multiple release dates like this. There's actually a discussion about this at the moment. Regardless, I have removed mention of the PS4 from the infobox.
  • I don't know if the word "game" is really overused in the article. Highlighting all instances of the word shows that it's used pretty sparingly in the first few sections, and then significantly in the Reception section, but this is simply because a lot of video game journalism publications use the word "game" in their name (Computer and Video Games, Eurogamer, Game Informer, GameSpot). Not to mention the 140 instances of the word in the references alone.
This is what I mean, even if you ignore the publication's names, there seems to be at least one 'game' every sentence (across Critical response). The solution is simple: replace it with "Last of Us" and "it" every now and then:

Many reviewers found the game's combat a refreshing difference from other games. Game Informer's Helgeson appreciated the vulnerability during fights,[64] while Kelly of Computer and Video Games enjoyed the variety in approaching the combat.[61] IGN's Moriarty felt that the game's crafting system assisted the combat, and that the latter contributed to the game's emotional value, adding that enemies feel "human".[66] Joystiq's Mitchell reiterated similar comments, stating that the combat "piles death upon death on Joel's hands".[67] Welsh of Eurogamer found the suspenseful and threatening encounters added positively to the gameplay.[63] Tom Mc Shea of GameSpot wrote that the game's artificial intelligence negatively affected the combat, with enemies often ignoring players' companions.[65]

—indopug (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the Awards section, I basically copied the formula that Grand Theft Auto V (an FA) uses for its Awards section. I understand your concern, but I don't know how I'd go about rectifying it.
Not a fan of that either, but at least there the list of items isn't as long as here (The sentence that begins "The game appeared on several year-end lists" has 23). As for rectifying it: aren't there more retrospective pieces on the game's awards out there? Ones that list out the numbers of Game of the Year, Best Actor, Best Writing etc awards it won? That way within a few sentences you could summarise the glut of awards.—indopug (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the length of Reception: I can't see any way of cutting down the reviews into three or four paragraphs, unless entire paragraphs are basically removed, and I'm not very enthusiastic about doing that.
  • I tried writing a Themes section in the past, but it was determined that the information would be better suited in Reception.
Thanks again. Let me know if you have more concerns. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 02:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: Any comments would be appreciated. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 00:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: Anything? – Rhain ☔ 14:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, if I were willing to put more of my time in FA reviewing as in previous years, I would've opposed this for failing 1a (since I don't any more, I'm just leaving feedback).
Good writing does not constitute sentences filled with long list of items (apart from the examples of this I pointed out above, I just saw the neverending "The game also topped the charts in the United States,[94] France,[95] Ireland,[96] Italy,[97] the Netherlands,[98] Sweden,[99] Finland,[99] Norway,[99] Denmark,[99] Spain,[100] and Japan.[101]"—why not just "The game also topped the charts in the United States, Japan and countries across Europe", or just "across the world"?).
To summarise: I do not believe what this article needs is just copyediting; a significant rewrite of Reception is needed.—indopug (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I made some minor amendments to the article, per your suggestions. I don't believe a rewrite of Reception is needed; your only remaining problems seem to be Awards, and a sentence in Sales, which I don't personally see as problems and nobody else has mentioned it. However, it doesn't appear that you are going to either support or oppose this article, so I appreciate all of the comments and feedback that you have provided. – Rhain ☔ 08:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review from ProtoDrake edit

I have gone through the article using Checklinks and found no faults. But when I manually went through them, I spotted a few things that needed dealing with.

  • Ref 3 has the wrong date: the cited video was published on Feb 24, 2014. Please fix this.
  • I must unfortunately take responsibility for as I started the trend (before WebCite did some kind of update and made the whole thing worthless): the WebCite archived references for GameTrailers and YouTube don't work.
    • In addition, the GameTrailers urls are out of date since their website move. This can be used for the time being for the 2014 Awards. Hopefully the original GameTrailers video will come back up at some point.
  • Ref 127 is inconsistent with the rest of the IGN-related citations. It needs correcting.

That's all I saw. When these concerns have been met, I'll have another look through to see if I missed anything. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ProtoDrake! I went through and fixed the inconsistencies, and replaced the GameTrailers URL. Also, since YouTube and GameTrailers can't be archived properly, I removed their archive URLs; I hope this is alright. Let me know if you see any other problems. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 00:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhain1999, thanks for the prompt response, spotted a couple of other things.

  • While most of the refs are down in the reference table, a large portion of them are still in the main text. I've seen these two styles used separately, but not in a combined form. I can see the reason for using the table, but maybe you could restrict this to the larger refs that incorporate multiple citations, unless there is a reason they cannot be incorporated into the main text.
  • The Joystiq and Edge links are technically dead, as they will redirect to Engadget and GamesRadar+ respectively. You need to specify that they are dead urls in the citations. Also, double-check the archived Edge urls as some of the later ones have developed a tendancy to attempt a redirect to GamesRadar+.

That's all I saw this time. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ProtoDrake. I addressed the Edge and Joystiq issues. The main reason that some of the references are down in the table was to avoid an unreadable "Awards" section (if you take a look, it's hard to read even when restricted to using ref names). Would it be better to move these back into the main text, or to move all of the references down the table? Unless it can stay as it is, of course. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 09:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhain1999, that's quite reasonable, and can remain as is. I can't see any further issues, so I'll give this a Pass on the source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: Many thanks. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 10:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review from PresN edit

All of the images are done right, but... there's three gameplay shots. Most video game articles get by with one image; with such an important game I could see two, but one shot for visual design and two for gameplay mechanics is a bit much. The second gameplay image adds nothing except showing Ellie attacking someone, which is not, in my opinion, a big thing that needs a visual to explain. In any case: one of the screenshot images needs to go, preferably one of the gameplay ones. You need to either drop one or replace them both with a new single image. --PresN 20:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, PresN. The reason I wanted a second screenshot was to display how the artificial intelligence system is used in the game, and how Ellie will assist players in combat. If you feel as though this is unnecessary, I can remove the screenshot and re-position the existing one. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 23:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just don't think the Ellie screenshot adds enough to the article that isn't already covered by text or the other image, sorry. --PresN 00:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Not a problem; I understand, and I appreciate your feedback. I've made the changes. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 00:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review: Pass --PresN 01:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Muchas gracias. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 01:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JDC808 edit

Sorry being a little late to the party. I haven't actually done any reviewing in awhile and I just happened to notice this on the list of FACs for WP:VG and thought I'd have a look.

First, before I begin reviewing, I always go through and do some copy-editing, especially if it's minor stuff. My thoughts are why tell you that you made a typo or need to add a word for grammatical sense when I can easily fix that? Anyways, I've gone through and copy-edited.

Critical Reception

  • After the first time you mention the name of the reviewer and their publication, you don't need to continuously mention that they are of that publication. For example, in the very first paragraph, it says "Andy Kelly of Computer and Video Games", then throughout the remainder of the section, whenever Kelly's review is used, you put "Kelly of Computer and Video Games" or a variant of that. In that first paragraph, you already told us that Kelly is the reviewer for Computer and Video Games, you don't need to continuously tell us that throughout the section. After the first time you tell us which publication the reviewer is from, all we need after that is just the reviewer's name (unless a reviewer from another publication has the same last name; in that case, "[last name] of [publication]" after the first mention would be okay, but that's not the case here).

Sales

  • You mention "It is one of the best-selling PlayStation 3 games." Looking at the link, it's the third best-selling PlayStation 3 game. Why not say that it's the third best-selling instead of a generalized "one of the best-selling"?

Other

  • As part of the marketing for the game, early access to the demo was included with early copies of God of War: Ascension. I feel this could be mentioned right after the sentence in the Development section that mentions its release date was pushed back, or maybe even the very last sentence of that paragraph. On that note, there's not any mention of the demo.
  • There was an easter egg in Uncharted 3 that referenced the virus and was essentially the first teaser (at least that I know of) for The Last of Us. Could this not be mentioned somewhere in the Development section?
    • I just looked at the dedicated Development article and it mentions it there, so I guess it would be okay to let it slide here. However, the demo with Ascension is not mentioned anywhere there. I'd say if you don't add the Ascension mention here, at least add it there.
  • I find it a little odd that there's not a dedicated Release section, even if it were just a sub right before "Additional content". Was the game released worldwide on June 14, 2013? --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JDC808. I appreciate your copy-editing.
  • I find that it makes sense to add the publication after every instance of the reviewer's name, since they're representing the publication. This has also been used on other FAs, such as Grand Theft Auto V, Seiken Densetsu 3 and Fez.
  • Added information about the demo to the development article.
  • I don't think a dedicated "Release" section is necessary for this article, especially considering that a lot of the information is summarised in the development article. The PS3 version launched worldwide on June 14, 2013; the PS4 release dates are covered in a footnote, and in its dedicated article.
– Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 01:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through the Critical Reception section, it got exhaustive continuously seeing "[last name] of [publication]" or a variant of it. They are representing the publication, but you already told us that when you first mentioned them, so it becomes very repetitive afterwards. There are other FAs that do as I'm suggesting.
  • In regards to a dedicated Release section, okay, and I wasn't suggesting putting all of the releases for the remastered version in it. --JDC808 ♫ 01:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JDC808: If I'm being honest, I much prefer to include the name of the publication upon each mention, but I can certainly remove them if you insist. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 01:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - though I'm personally not a fan of how the Critical Reception section is done as noted above, it's not enough of a reason to keep this from being an FA. --JDC808 ♫ 03:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JDC808: Merci beaucoup. – Rhain☔1999 (talk to me) 03:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

There a quite a few duplicate links in the article, which you can display by installing/invoking this script; pls run and check over if these dupes are really necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I found that none of them were necessary, so I removed them all. Thanks for linking the tool; that should be useful in the future. – Rhain ☔ 14:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tks. Now, my apologies for not checking this sooner, but it doesn't appear to me that we've had a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing, an extra hoop we ask those who haven't yet had a successful FAC (correct me if I'm wrong on that score) to jump through. Such a check can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Does ProtoDrake's source review not count? – Rhain ☔ 09:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We distinguish between "source reviews" for formatting and reliability, and "spotchecks of sources" for accurate use of cited material and avoidance of close paraphrasing (or outright plagiarism) -- unless I've misread it, ProtoDrake's review is mainly concerned with formatting, i.e. the former type of source-related review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: I assumed this would be the case, thanks for replying. I'll request a spotcheck. – Rhain ☔ 10:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check by Cas Liber edit

Right, using this version in case references get moved around......

  • FN 52 - material faithful to source
  • FN 70 - material faithful to source
  • FN 82 - material faithful to source
  • FN 86 - material faithful to source

i.e. all looking ok. Was about to do Earwig's but timing out and am going to bed in a minute. Anyone is free to run it. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC) done it now. all clear apart from one false positive...so lookin' good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 19 February 2016 (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/The_Last_of_Us/archive2&oldid=1138473286"