Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Turok: Dinosaur Hunter/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 SandyGeorgia 22:53, 6 September 2009 [1].

Turok: Dinosaur Hunter edit

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Turok: Dinosaur Hunter/archive1

If you're interested in the sad business decisions of a 1990s video game company, then consider Turok: Dinosaur Hunter your primer. It's got guns, dinosaurs, and serious revenue shortages... read on! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yet another great Fuchs VG article. igordebraga ≠ 23:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alt text done; thanks. ~~Two of the three images lack alt text. The remaining image has only the alt text "North American box art", which conveys little info about the image.~~ Please see WP:ALT for more about alt text. Eubulides (talk) 03:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've taken a first stab at alt text. I'm not exactly sure how to explain a game screenshot, however. Can you take a look and see if I should go about it another way? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks. Some comments:
  - ~~"North American box art, depicting an" can be removed, as it duplicates the caption, and also it cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the image~~ (see WP:ALT #What not to specify).
  - ~~"First-person view of a" Is this phrase needed? More important, that alt text doesn't mention the prominent frame around the image, which has a gun pointed at the dinosaur and other icons.~~
  - The 3rd alt text looks good.
  Eubulides (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tweaked. Better now? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, thanks, it looks good. Eubulides (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ for now, based on 1a crtieria of WP:WIAFA. "Keys, found on all the levels, enable access to the other stages of the game. When enough keys have been inserted into the lock mechanisms of a hub portal, the level is unlocked." this is confusing. "The player's main objective is to find pieces of a relic known as the Chronoscepter, one on each level" that too. "Turok was announced in August 1994 as an exclusive title for Nintendo's planned "Ultra 64" console, which would eventually be called the Nintendo 64 or N64" there's redundancy there. It needs a runthru. Martin Raybourne (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've run through and hopefully clarified the above. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's better. I guess the rpose looks good to my eyes, I will support. Martin Raybourne (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The article looks to be in good shape. Here are the issues which stood out to me.

Some words and abbreviations are used interchangeably without letting the reader know that one is an abbreviation. I suggest using "Nintendo 64 (N64)" and "three-dimensional (3D)" in the article for the first instance of the terms and using the abbreviation for the remainder of the article.
The image of the N64 seems a bit superfluous. Maybe mention the analog joystick's reception in the caption to better strengthen the connection.
The fourth development paragraph goes into a lot of detail about Acclaim's woes. This is great information, but it seems better suited for Acclaim's article and deviates too far from the subject of Turok in my opinion.
I know we disagree on the use of quotations in reception sections, but I still have to bring it up I guess: I think the quotes should be paraphrased more. This of course does not break any style guideline to my knowledge so you are welcome to do what you see fit.
The last section reads almost like a "Reception and legacy" section. Maybe consider renaming it. Also, the latter half of the last "Development" paragraph sounds more like reception and legacy content to me, and would fit well with the renaming.
Not sure, but I think a comma is needed after "contrast" here: "In contrast William Burrill of...'".
Are there any other sources to use in place of the older IGN and GameSpot ones?

I'll probably be offline most of the weekend so I'll check back Monday at the latest. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've hopefully clarified the 3D and N64 terms, added the N64 joystick info to the photo caption, and renamed the last section. To me the last bit of the development section was more about release and thus didn't really mesh with the reception that well. What do you mean by other sources to use in place of the IGN and GameSpot ones? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disregard the comment about sources. Further inspection removed my concerns. IGN was an offshoot of Imagine Publishing in the early days and the GameSpot sources are only being used for opinion and a release date.
  What about the tangential details of Acclaim's woes?
  "Both "Nintendo 64" and "N64" are used throughout the article. The clarification removes the confusion, but I think only using one would be more consistent and improve readability. Everything else looks great. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  - I've gone ahead and swapped N64 out for Nintendo 64. As for the details about Acclaim's woes... yeah, it's a bit tangental as it doesn't deal directly with the game's development, but I think it contextualizes a lot and explicitly states how badly Acclaim needed its first big next-gen title to be a hit. Better to err on the side of more info than less, especially in an article that's not threatened with becoming too chunky, is my standpoint. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Support: Looks good to me. Though I don't agree with all the content's presentation, it does not seem to violate WP:FA?. The prose is well-written, the article is informative, and the sources look good. Another excellent article David. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Support - based on Citerion 1a. Is the prose clearer to this non-gamer because games have become much more complex over the past ten years :-) ? Graham Colm ^Talk 17:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A thorough article and a pleasure to read. I've found no errors in the article and no reason to object. Well done!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no image/non-free issues. Black Kite 14:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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