Wikipedia:Peer review/Shadow of the Colossus/archive1

Shadow of the Colossus

Essentially, we've been writing this article with FA status in mind, and after a small CVG peer review, we'd like some additional feedback before taking this to FAC. Thanks. -- Steel 13:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two pictures of box are are both listed as screen shots
When you say in the lead that the game got a 91% ranking, I wanted to know how that would compare to an average game ranking, or maybe a ranking for some widely known game
You briefly mention that both Shadow and Ico use a fictional language, is it the same fictional language?
I really like having the track listing in a scroll box, it seems like a good way to present something that on other pages often becomes a distracting list. I guess I wonder though whether or not it's 'acceptable' for a featured article. I only wonder because I've never seen it in any article before and that makes me think that people might object to it.
It appears that all of the game reviews are from North American sources. Would it be possible to get a japanese comment in there? I know(from reading wikipedia) that Famitsu is notoriously critical. It would be interesting to know how this generally stellarly reviewed game was recieved by the harsh critic. Although, this is again just something that seems like it would be interesting to know.

I hope these comments help you.--Dekkanar 17:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, and the work you've already done sorting out grammar and such. The scroll box was added after someone saw it being used in featured article Half-Life 2, so we thought it was a good idea. I'll look into your other points. -- Steel 17:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the boxarts are no longer tagged as screenshots. -- Steel 17:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's already in a featured article, then I guess I wouldn't worry about it. Thanks for pointing that out to me though.--Dekkanar 17:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'll see if I can make productive implementation of it. Ryu Kaze 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, we do have a European site as one of the critics, but the one I'd really like to have the review from is EDGE magazine. They are far more notorious for being hard-assed than Famitsu to be honest. They actually did like the game, though, and gave it a 8 out of 10. That's all I know, sadly. I don't know what they specifically liked or disliked. Ryu Kaze 17:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, forgot to answer your question about the language. Ico had two fictional languages, actually, though neither was based on a real language exactly. The lead game designer for both Ico and Shadow has said that one might say Ico's two languages are similar to Chinese and French,[1] while Shadow's single language is based partly upon the romanization of Japanese.[2] Ryu Kaze 18:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited that particular sentence to be less ambiguous. As it was, it seemed to imply that the two games shared the same fictional language "Both games use a fictional language".--Dekkanar 18:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also went ahead and made sure we had seperate references there for both languages. Ryu Kaze 02:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the game got a 37/40 from Famitsu, as seen here. Since that's a rather nice score from Famitsu, it may be a good idea to give that a mention somewhere. --Onlynameicanget 03:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. I wish it was something other than a forum thread, though. :( We can't use that as a reference unfortunately. I can't find any well known gaming sites with info on the Famitsu rating. Ryu Kaze 12:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just now found one! Here's the info on Games Are Fun, a gaming news/reviews site that lists Famitsu scores regularly. Can't believe I didn't see that earlier. --Onlynameicanget 14:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good show, lad. I was just about to report that I'd also found on the official Japanese site that Shadow apparently won some "Special Prize (Rookie Grand Prix)" award in the Famitsu Awards for 2005. Also, as I understand it, Steel might be able to get us some info on EDGE's treatment of the game. Though we won't have any of the specifics concerning what Famitsu liked or didn't like, if we can get them for EDGE and supply the score from Famitsu (which is really what most people seem to care about anyway; they ask "What did Famitsu rate [insert game here]?" not "What did Famitsu like about it?"), we'll have a solid critical response section, I believe. Which is not to say that having specific details on Famitsu's review wouldn't be nice (:D). Again, well done. Ryu Kaze 14:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All three of you are doing a really impressive amount of work and collaboration on this. It's impressive to watch.--Dekkanar 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ^^ Ryu Kaze 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got us an English reference for the Special Rookie Award now, as well as a reference off of Famitsu's own site. I'll just use all three for the reference. I'm going to go ahead and add the Famitsu award to the page. Ryu Kaze 14:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Better reference for it off of Famitsu's site. Ryu Kaze 14:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steel, remember how we were discussing replacing the Gaius image with one of #2 if we could get a good one that wasn't so vertical? How's this one? It's not quite as high-quality, perhaps, but it doesn't look as beta-ish as the Gaius image (since this is from the final version). I can get rid of the IGN logo on it if you think this one would be better. Ryu Kaze 14:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I really wish we could use this one, but it's vertical too. Ryu Kaze 15:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with vertical images anyway? -- Steel 15:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes nothing, but people are often uneasy with them because of potential layout issues. Personally, I don't mind using them. If they screw up the layout on someone's monitor, usually it can be expected that they'll post on the talk page and say "That vertical image really screws up the layout on my monitor". If you want to go ahead with it, we can use either the one you were looking at a few days ago (though that's a beta picture too, actually), or the one of Gaius I just found. Ryu Kaze 15:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to keep looking. I remember seeing a good image for #13, and that colossus really is colossal. I'll see if I can find it again -- Steel 15:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't be this one, would it? When I think of an image that really shows off how big he is, that's the one that comes to mind. Ryu Kaze 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember, but I think it mught have been this one, though the one you provided shows off the scale much better. There's also this one, but it's not that good. Let's use your one. -- Steel 15:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll go ahead and shrink it a little bit so that it isn't seen as a fair-use vio, and then upload it. Ryu Kaze 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it's confirmed that Shadow is a Greatest Hits title now, but I still can't find an online article that we could actually cite on the subject. We'd need one that came out after the price drop on August 1 (all the ones prior didn't mention a date for it or talked about it like it was a rumor) and that made note of it happening on August 1 or in August 2006. Ryu Kaze 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steel's gotten the review from EDGE now and added a little more info. If no one else can think of anything to add beyond this point, I think we might be ready for FAC. How's everybody else feeling about this? Ryu Kaze 21:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAC sounds good, though I'd like to wait until Onlynameicanget gets back (unless he's Ok with us ploughing ahead). -- Steel 21:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good to go. Did you guys decide on the issue with the PAL cover though? Tani unit 21:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's raised any issues with it so it looks like it has survived. At least for now. -- Steel 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, why don't we just take this to FAC now? It won't be done for a few days anyway. -- Steel 22:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and keep the train rolling, I say. Ryu Kaze 22:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, guys, it's time to fly. Ryu Kaze 22:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]