Wikipedia:Featured article review/ToeJam & Earl/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 delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [1].
ToeJam & Earl edit
- Notified: Bridies, WikiProject Video games
Review comments edit
This article no longer meets 1a, 1b, 2b and 2c of the FA criteria. I can see that it has unfortunately slumped over the past few years as a lot of it is also out of date. I'll list some of the more glaring issues in broad strokes: the lead does not summarise the article, the reception section has overquoting issues and is not comprehensive enough, there is an inconsistent use of "Genesis" and "Mega Drive", and the majority of the prose is choppy. Also, some references are unformatted and unreliable. The article has deteriorated since 2009 and seems shy from meeting the GA criteria in its current state. I'll alert the original author, Bridies, but he's sadly retired. JAGUAR 12:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Reception section in particular needs work—should be cohesive prose rather than one-off summaries of reviewers. czar 00:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I removed a section on a revival, as YouTube and Kickstarter were the only sources cited in it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the ping guys. I think the blunt end of what I have to say is that I doubt I'll help bring it back up to FA standard, if it's even possible; if there were a bullet-point list of things to "fix" I might be tempted, but on the other hand, I don't want to contribute to the site (other than fixing typos etc.), on principle. I think much of the mess in the reception section seems to have simply been caused by someone smacking the enter button and turning each sentence into a paragraph. I considered a big roll-back revert but it appears infeasible. Ditto the inconsistent citation style seems largely (the kickstarter stuff now being removed) the result of someone changing refs (and/or new ones) to template-d ones (instead of using the simpler, no-templates, style that was in place before; I checked the FAC and, yes, this is still how new refs should be added). With the prose issues and "over-quoting issues" I am tempted, if you will forgive me, to simply raise my middle fingers. I vaguely recall there being complaints about my use of directs quotes (and I liked to do so, because the style of reception section otherwise advocated, e.g. here, as in "Reviewers XYZ said the graphics were good. ABC said they were very good." and so on, is coma-inducing, and part of the reason no one actually reads Wiki articles beyond the lead. In my humble opinion.) Anyway. The prose went through copy-edits (previously, there may have been many more quotes!) by at least one guy with a load of FAs and a load of FA copy-edits (and from what I gathered from my talk page interactions with him, professional writing and editing experience - as I now also have). Although I've seen his FACs take a bashing on prose too, I think. TLDR: The FAC prose requirements are a hugely subjective moving target which I no longer take very seriously; but most of the prose passed FAC as-is (just with less treatment of the enter button). The really big issue I see above is the assertion that the reception section is not comprehensive, and that many more scans are easily available. I'm pretty certain this was not the case when I wrote the thing in what, 2009? But I can well believe that there could be now. I think they would be for someone else to add, though. A last quick note on the review summaries being short: I think reviews from the early '90s, at least the ones I saw, were simply themselves very short, and certainly on substance. Cheers, bridies (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Good to see bridies again, although the circumstances could be better. I felt compelled to reply here because I was the "one guy with a load of FAs and a load of FA copy-edits" mentioned above. The article's prose is clinical and stripped down, to be sure, but there are many valid ways to write a Wikipedia article. This sort of strictly-business staccato has been my preference for years. And, although I've run into my share of prose trouble at FAC, I don't recall a single objection over that style—not even from Tony1. The article's prose may very well have actual flaws (I copyedited it around 7 years ago), but style preference is not an actionable objection. Also, at a glance, the lead seems to summarize the article fairly well, and I see absolutely zero unreliable sources in the citations. (Perhaps these two things have changed since the FAR started.) Finally, per WP:CITEVAR, template-free citations are fine as long as they're applied consistently. Template-free cites were always bridies' go-to, if memory serves. Looking at the featured version, no templates were used—which means that the templates now in the article were added later, by editors apparently unaware of CITEVAR. Barring a few small carry-overs, I see no reason not to revert the page to the 2009 version and call this FAR done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I also read through the 2009 version, and I'd say it looks alright, but simply reverting back to that version isn't enough. The reception section seems like a mashup of random comments from reviews. I understand that older games didn't get extensive reviews like they do nowadays, but it seems like there's no direction. Also, certain retrospective articles would need to be included, like The Verge and GameSetWatch. I think that if someone is willing to put the time into fixing up the 2009 version, which is in better shape than the current version in my opinion, then I think we can close this FAR. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like a pretty easy rescue job. I'd do it myself but work has me tied up until mid-January, and probably later. Any Good Samaritans interested in the chance to save an FA? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can probably make an attempt. Not until 1st Jan at the earliest, though, for the same end-of-year reasons as probably everyone else. bridies (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will be quite busy myself until January at the earliest, but I'll be happy to help. To summarise I think the reception section could also do with a mention of its GameRankings aggregation and more cohesive prose, which seems to be the more glaring issue. JAGUAR 17:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I can probably make an attempt. Not until 1st Jan at the earliest, though, for the same end-of-year reasons as probably everyone else. bridies (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds like a pretty easy rescue job. I'd do it myself but work has me tied up until mid-January, and probably later. Any Good Samaritans interested in the chance to save an FA? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I also read through the 2009 version, and I'd say it looks alright, but simply reverting back to that version isn't enough. The reception section seems like a mashup of random comments from reviews. I understand that older games didn't get extensive reviews like they do nowadays, but it seems like there's no direction. Also, certain retrospective articles would need to be included, like The Verge and GameSetWatch. I think that if someone is willing to put the time into fixing up the 2009 version, which is in better shape than the current version in my opinion, then I think we can close this FAR. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, MOS, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. I haven't looked at the other issues, but dead links, bare urls and inconsistent citation style are enough for me to declare at this point. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist now, but if we resolve even a couple of the issues here, it'd easily be back to GA. FA status seems a bit further, however. Referencing shouldn't be too hard, and I disagree with the prose and comprehensiveness issues. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. It doesn't seem too far off, but with no one willing to give it the attention it deserves, it shouldn't have the star. I think it's more than a cleanup task; further research is surely needed plus a re-writing of the Reception section. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.