Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katamari Damacy/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by User:Marskell 13:51, 10 September 2008 [1].
Katamari Damacy edit
Review commentary edit
I count five sections without any sources, and the rest are desperately in need of citations (I could litter it with {{cn}}, but that seems counter-productive.) Goes into unnecessary game detail, and lacks information on development, failing comprehensiveness criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've given this a first cleanup pass - cut down story and gameplay drastically and have worked out a development section. There's still more in the sales section that can be improved and fixed. --MASEM 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify significant contributers as well as associated wikipedia projects and post these notifications at the top of this FAR (see the instructions at WP:FAR. Thanks! --Regents Park (paddle with the ducks) 16:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What information on development does it lack? Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that that concern is no longer as relevant, though it was with the revision I nom'd for FAR: rev1 --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- More specifically, there was no development before I did a mass edit to add some. --MASEM 20:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified A Link to the Past, FAC nominator. —Giggy 03:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Would've been nice to have been notified of the FAR in advance by David, but hey, high expectations, I guess. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What issues are actually outstanding here? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty sure there are sections of story and gameplay needing sourcing. Reviews can be used for that, I just haven't had time. --MASEM 14:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Baloney. Both are implicitly sourced to the primary source material, i.e. the game, which is an utterly fine source for identifying its own plot and gameplay. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This generally doesn't fly anymore for FA's, at least for gameplay, which 99% of the time can be easily backed by collaborating evidence from reviews. The plot, fortunately, can also be cited as such. --MASEM 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am appalled that that doesn't fly. Backing with evidence from reviews, given the egregiously poor editorial and ethical practices of the video game review industry, is a miserably poor idea for something that can be straightforwardly gleaned from primary sources within our policy. This is something we ought push back on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At worst, a review from a reliable source (meaning that some editorial oversight has been done) is better in terms of verifiability than an editor's interpretation of game mechanics or plot, when it can be done. Even sourcing the game itself or the manual is preferred over no source at all. Mind you, I agree that in most cases, plot and gameplay can stand on its own, but its clear from several recent GA/FAs that I've been through that lack of any source in gameplay and plot will be called out and questioned. --MASEM 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, obviously there are places where secondary sources can have a role to play. But in this specific article, I see nothing of significance in the gameplay section that seems to me to require a secondary source. That people will raise the concern seems to me beside the point - it is a needless concern that imposes undue requirements on articles, and it cannot meaningfully help improve them. It's something I think it's better to hold a firm line on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At worst, a review from a reliable source (meaning that some editorial oversight has been done) is better in terms of verifiability than an editor's interpretation of game mechanics or plot, when it can be done. Even sourcing the game itself or the manual is preferred over no source at all. Mind you, I agree that in most cases, plot and gameplay can stand on its own, but its clear from several recent GA/FAs that I've been through that lack of any source in gameplay and plot will be called out and questioned. --MASEM 15:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am appalled that that doesn't fly. Backing with evidence from reviews, given the egregiously poor editorial and ethical practices of the video game review industry, is a miserably poor idea for something that can be straightforwardly gleaned from primary sources within our policy. This is something we ought push back on. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This generally doesn't fly anymore for FA's, at least for gameplay, which 99% of the time can be easily backed by collaborating evidence from reviews. The plot, fortunately, can also be cited as such. --MASEM 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Baloney. Both are implicitly sourced to the primary source material, i.e. the game, which is an utterly fine source for identifying its own plot and gameplay. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 10:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Agree with everything said above by David Fuchs (talk · contribs) and Masem (talk · contribs). Masem has made some admirable changes to the article since the FAR started, but it isn't really up to the quality of current FA standards in its present state. It might pass a GA review, but not too sure on that one either. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. As per comments above, just doesn't meet FA-quality at moment. Wouldn't be too hard to boost it up, but it would require more than just sourcing here and there. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No evidence of missing sources in any area where primary sources are unsuitable. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional keep. I kind of forgotten to work on this, and would like a week to do some sourcing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; sourcing is fine (Masem just made it better) and comprehensiveness isn't an issue. I'll try and give it another touch up at some point. Looks good. —Giggy 02:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.