Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 January 2023 [1].

Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts

[edit]
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 14:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you get when you throw a niche-but-beloved late '90s franchise, cars, Legos, and infuriated fanboys into a blender? You get Rare's misguided masterpiece, Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. This honest-to-God attempt to innovate in a genre that'd stagnated outside of Mario ultimately did more to kill the series it was attempting to resurrect than it did to, well, resurrect it, but it's seen a bit of a renaissance in recent years thanks to its inclusion in Rare Replay. Nowadays, you're more likely to hear about how it was unfairly maligned and innovative, offering a massive amount of constructive freedom a full three years before Minecraft's proper release.

This article has been a GA for several years, but I recently gave it a major overhaul as part of a personal project I've started and I believe it's the most comprehensive resource for the game on the internet. I hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 14:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DecafPotato

[edit]
DecafPotato, there is alt text for those images already present. Not sure why it isn't showing up in the toolbox? EDIT: fixed it, just had to separate the two alts. JOEBRO64 01:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went to try splitting the alt text, and you already did it. Nice. The issue might be something to do with the multiple image template? Idk. DecafPotato (talk) 01:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DecafPotato, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was just leaving quick comments, but after looking through the whole thing, I support the nom. DecafPotato (talk) 16:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing—refs 11 and 12 cite Nuts & Bolts itself, which is fine, but they cite a specific page number, which confuses me? How is there a page number when citing the video game? Does it use the script of the level? I would assume that it refers to the instruction manual, but it specifically mentions Spiral Mountain—a level with in the game. Is that something that needs fixing? DecafPotato (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @DecafPotato: that was supposed to be going to the manual, which is cited at the bottom. For some reason the SFNs were targeting the game cites rather than the manual. I've fixed it. JOEBRO64 22:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, fan requests for Banjo and Kazooie's inclusion in Nintendo's crossover fighting game series Super Smash Bros. led to their addition to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (2018) in 2019 – Is this relevant to Nuts & Bolts specifically? It seems like something more suited for the character or series articles. DecafPotato (talk) 07:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We say immediately after the enthusiastic responses to their addition could convince Microsoft to commission another Banjo-Kazooie game JOEBRO64 13:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

@Nikkimaria: responded above, thank you for the image review! JOEBRO64 14:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from SnowFire

[edit]

This is not a full review and I don't intend it to become one... but as a passerby comment... I'm skeptical of the way the article currently presents the critical reassessment as if it was more broadly-supported than it really seems to be. I would tentatively suggest either rephrasing such claims to be more along the lines of "Critical reappraisals from Journalist X, Y, and Z" think Nuts & Bolts was actually awesome, rather than suggesting that this opinion was uncontroversially shared. That or finding stronger sources suggesting that such a positive reappraisement really is more widespread than I get the impression from the linked sources. For example, the 2020 XBox magazine retrospective calls it "daring, divisive" in its subheader, suggesting that the division hasn't gone away, along with "often seen as the black sheep of the franchise," suggesting that not everyone is as positive as Mayles. The Polygon list on Rare Replay in 2015 does indeed rank Nuts & Bolts highly, yes, but still behind the original Banjo-Kazooie, which weakens the case for other lines like "Retrospective reviewers have reappraised it as the best Banjo-Kazooie game". Put another way, for other series with even more reviews, it's comparatively easy to find some journalist, somewhere, saying that any given Final Fantasy or Halo or Zelda game is the best one. But we shouldn't claim that each game in these other series is considered the best one in the series in each one's own individual game article by citing the journalists who liked This Specific Version the most. It's fine to say "Journalists X and Y call it the best game in the series;" saying that "reviewers" in general have reappraised it as such probably requires a stronger analysis (whether via having a long footnote detailing critical opinions, or via an outright meta-source RS that analyzes the matter).

On a more minor note, I think you linked the wrong reference in "Influence" - you've referenced the contemporary GamesRadar+ 2008 review, which certainly does not talk about alleged influence on 2015 games! (Going to presume it was really the "misunderstood gem" GamesRadar article.)

Finally, and this is very much a personal preference item - I know editors who swear by the reverse - but I'm not a huge fan of talking about publications rather than game journalists. This can make sense for publications with very strong editorial views that overwhelm the individual author (e.g. Nintendo Power) but this isn't true for most publications - Kotaku is not a hive mind, etc. I'd be more inclined to credit journalists rather than publications for opinions, or both if you don't mind being wordy. But this is optional. SnowFire (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire, I did a good amount of work on the lede and retrospective assessments subsection to address this. Let me know what you think.
Thanks for catching that GamesRadar+ ref error—I've fixed it.
As for publications vs. journalists: I see where you're coming from. It's my personal preference to use publication names over journalists (unless the journalist is notable on Wikipedia, like Jim Sterling or Jason Schreier) because journalists are usually speaking on behalf of their publications in reviews and retrospectives, unless otherwise noted. I also think it's a little easier for readers to follow with publication names rather than people's names. I can still take a stab at using journalist names if you'd like. JOEBRO64 00:57, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I believe it is an improvement to stick with "Some" before "retrospective reviewers". I consider my concern met on this, for the closer.
On attributing journalists vs. magazines - like I said, I consider this a stylistic concern up to you, so more of an "FYI" thing. I'll defer to your knowledge on this, but the one case where I'd definitely recommend citing journalists rather than publications unconditionally is if a single publication has published notably inconsistent reviews (unsure if that's true of any of the currently cited sources on Nuts & Bolts). For one famous example, IGN graded God Hand a 3/10, "Awful" in 2006 and also published a retrospective review saying that it was AMAZING in all capital letters in 2019. That wasn't a case of some combined entity called "IGN" having muddled thoughts, but rather just the journalist who wrote the original review having a different take from a separate journalist writing a decade later, and so attributing the specific journalist rather than IGN would be important in such a case of contrasting reviews. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that example is not the publication changing its mind, as reviewers too can and do change their minds over time. The point remains that a reader will not follow the introduction of five unknown reviewer names in one paragraph into the successive several paragraphs. They're more likely to understand and associate the opinion of a publication metonymically. czar 21:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: First of all, to be clear, this was not something I considered oppose-worthy, merely mention-worthy. Perhaps some readers might better recognize the publication name than the journalist name, I agree. I believe the gain in accuracy makes the trade worth taking, though. In practice, reviews are actually the opinion of the specific journalist doing the review most of the time; this is more relevant than usual to discuss when there's a claim of a shift of opinion over time, like there is for this topic. Happy to continue to discuss elsewhere such as at WT:VG if desired to not sidetrack this FAC.
As for my God Hand example, those two reviews are written by different people, not one long-term employee changing their mind. There's no reason to think that the original reviewer changed their opinion (he seems to have restated in 2014, at least). SnowFire (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by David Fuchs

[edit]

Review will be forthcoming this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David ? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had to travel and my review's still mostly back at my place. Hope to get back to it before the end of this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I want to perform a copyedit addressing some issues I had, but others that I thought needed more discussion or expert input I've left and listed below:

  • General:
    • The structure of the gameplay section feels a little off. We explain the basic premise, talk about the hub world, and mention you collect Jiggies through missions: the next paragraph then switches to talking about vehicles, and then a whole paragraph later explains what the missions are. Feels like this should be more proximately located next to the first mention of what missions are.
    • In a similar vein, I think the opening of the development section should probably be rearranged to be more chronological. It seems odd to me we don't discuss the company being bought until after mentioning sequel ideas and the games that clearly Microsoft was involved in since it was post-purchase.
    • Per WP:NOPRICE, I think the DLC price should just be axed (no one knows what MS points are anyhow.)
    • I'm kind of confused about some of the use of quotes throughout; either the content could be summarized better without the quotes (good, because it'd reduce wordiness), or the quoted content is so minimal that I'm wondering why it's used at all (e.g. "became popular, and credited Nuts & Bolts with "lay[ing] the groundwork" for them"—laying the groundwork is a really common phrase, and if the rest of the sentence isn't cribbing its language it doesn't make sense to only quote the very end.
    • When it comes to the retrospective assessments, there seems like an inordinate amount of space spent on individual staffer's opinions that could be trimmed.
  • Prose:
    • "They do not retain their abilities from prior games" Without knowing anything about the previous games, this sentence strikes me as less than useful, and the rest of the clause further clouds the issue. Is it referring to attacks? Different sorts of weapons? Or mobility abilities.
    • Humba Wumba doesn't link to anything in particular in the series article.
    • "Following the release of Banjo-Tooie, Rare's Banjo-Kazooie series went on a hiatus"—I get that the Gemspot source is more or less saying this, but I don't think hiatus is really a good word to use considering the franchise still had regular releases, just not for consoles.
    • "Vehicle gameplay was introduced after Rare, in a departure from their previous reliance on proprietary software, acquired Havok. " This makes it sound like Rare acquired Havok the company, not that they decided using it would complement their game.
    • "Especial difficulty came from the user interface" I assume we didn't go Spanish and this should be 'special'.
    • The development section suffers from what are to me an excessive use of quotes and repetitious sections. They mention the interactive Lego set once in the conception section but it gets repeated (and I feel like the accessibility concerns regarding aspects of the game gets hammered way too many times and said more times than is necessary.)
    • "Rare initially used a high-polygon version of Banjo and Kazooie's model from Banjo-Kazooie and Banjo-Tooie, but they felt it lacked the charm of the older games. Several redesigns were proposed; the team chose artist Ed Bryan's suggestion for a cuboid version of the original design that resembled a high-resolution, low-polygon model. Bryan felt this retained the sharp edges characteristic of the original model and fit Nuts & Bolts's direction" I'm not sure this scans to a general reader. (Even I don't know what a "cuboid" version of the original design means in this specific context, and I work in motion design for a living.)
    • The origins of Minecraft are pretty well discussed, and as far as I know there's no common "oh we got it from Banjo" statements from the devs, so I'd say the quotes (especially from the developers themselves) asserting this are undue weight and should be excised.
  • Media:
  • References:

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: thank you for the comments! I've responded to everything above. Sorry for the long wait JOEBRO64 20:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from czar

[edit]
Extended content

Nice to see these improvements to the Rare Replay good topic! (And perhaps a good reason for us to revisit some of the other FA-eligible articles...) While I wonder what Jaguar would say about this being a "Great Game™", at the very least I do owe this a review.

  • I'll copy edit directly as I read, so my comments here will mainly be structural
  • "Rare's first game made specifically for the Xbox 360" This feels misleading for the lede, per footnote b, since multiple other games predated it for the console. Is the catch that it was not "made specifically" for the console? If that doesn't matter to the essence of the game, I'd cut it as trivia.

§ Gameplay

  • This section is very heavy on comparisons with the series even though this is a completely different genre. For a general readership, I would think it's better to introduce the game in how it works (mechanics and objective), first in broad strokes and then in detail (e.g., how vehicle construction works), and then touch on similiarites with the series insofar as those details are not trivial.
    • I've restructured it as you've suggested. I was actually thinking about trying to avoid bogging it down with comparisons as I wrote it... guess I got a bit sloppy :P JOEBRO64 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few unclear concepts: Whose "attack power and agility"—the spanner's or BK's? Are game globes just tokens to unlock worlds (if so, do we need to mention that they're globes?) Do the BK eggs and Ice Key spawn the crates in N&B?
  • Stop N Swop's trivia either belongs in the Development section or removed
  • Do reviews discuss the game's plot? If not, it should be reduced to what the reader needs to know about its premise and fit within Gameplay, per WP:VGMOS.
  • Is the series really on hiatus if Rare made spin-offs?

§ Development

  • This is a very involved section. It reads twice as along as what a general audience member would want/need to know about the subject. A lot of the unsurprising stuff (they wanted the world to be "living, breathing" and "populated by many characters"; Loveday was excited to write the script) can be cut. Basically if it doesn't show in a secondary source, there should be a really compelling case to prove that it's noteworthy for a general audience.
  • "remembered as unique" and not "just another platform"; "impossible on older hardware" and "not until the Xbox 360" aren't these the same thoughts described in parallel? Shouldn't they be combined?
  • "the effort to re-model and texture the environments" It isn't entirely clear by this point which are "the environments"? More succinctly: "Development began ... based on Rare co-founder's suggestion ... but staff felt that their time spent remodeling those environments would be better spent on an original game." Right now the thoughts are disconnected.
  • How does the Viva Pinata game engine relate to Havok? They're covered separately.
    • Havok is a middleware physics engine, not a game engine. Game and physics engines are separate and do different things—the game engine implements all the basic technologies, while the physics engine uses information it's fed to simulate object physics. JOEBRO64 15:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Betteridge considered community a key element since players could share designs" What made it key or showed that they treated it as key?
  • Shouldn't the two mentions of playtesting be combined together?
  • The interview section on testing each vehicle part seems superfluous
  • "Especial difficulty came from the user interface" Passive voice
  • WP:GEOCOMMA for the Wales/France caption
  • Were all editions of the game in American English?
  • "very upsetting time for me" Because the Stampers left? The connection is left vague.
    • I've removed the Stampers leaving because it wasn't important. I thought it added a little more context for why Kirkhope wasn't happy during his last year at Rare (when he was working on Banjo) but I can see why it's confusing so I've binned it. JOEBRO64 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Kirkhope the lead composer or were they all equals? It's unclear.

§ Release

  • Why is the detail of when the promotional website launched important? All of these dates can be summarized so that readers don't have to follow the blow-by-blow archaeology of everything that happened in the game's marketing.
    • I think it's noteworthy as it marked the beginning of the proper marketing campaign and Rare/Microsoft starting to back the curtain on the game. Happy to discuss further though JOEBRO64 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally the Fan response can be greatly summarized
  • "over 100,000 copies in the United Kingdom" In the same time period or overall?

§ Reception

  • From my recollection, its vehicle mechanics were clunky and buggy as all hell. Is it true that it was only a minor point to reviewers? Here only two reviewers are cited as saying the controls were difficult and a bundled ref glosses over framerate issues as occasional. (Not that my opinion is right or must be expressed—I'm just surprised to see this buried here as minor points!)
    • Yeah they weren't big points in a lot of reviews, for whatever reason. I took some pretty thorough notes on every review (which are here for reference)—a good number of critics noted the frame rate as irritating, and some thought the vehicle handling was annoying, but they weren't seen as terribly significant, let alone dealbreakers. JOEBRO64 01:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with SnowFire's comment above re: source attribution but there are parts that could be better combined here. "Reviewers praised the writing and humour" should have a direct citation so we know which, or they can be listed here. It's also different to say that reviewers praised its writing before going into examples vs. saying they praised its writing and adding that "they found the jokes hilarious", as the latter makes "reviewers" sound more like a monolith instead of individuals. Perhaps distribute that second sentence further within the paragraph?
  • Why start with its writing and humor? Isn't that a secondary facet of the game? The whole article has been about a new approach to gameplay up until this point, so I'd expect that to come sooner.
    • That's how reviews were structured (starting with the premise/writing and then getting into the meat) so I went with that. Regardless, I see what you mean; I've moved it down below the exploration paragraph. JOEBRO64 15:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The visuals were commended" Passive voice
  • "Showdown Town" could be replaced with "the hub world" or "the overworld" throughout the article with only improvements to clarity
  • With these bundled/combined refs, why group them as a footnote of footnotes? It would be better for the reader to see the footnote explain which refs are being combined, i.e., {{harvnb}} instead of <ref>...</ref> (or even better, just the names of the publications).

The rest

  • "Following the Nuts & Bolts demo's release, players with standard-definition televisions complained that the dialogue font size was too small to be readable. Rare initially said the problem would be too expensive to fix, but quickly reversed their stance and pledged to develop a patch to make the font size bigger.[86] The patch was released on 22 December.[87]" This is a good example of what can be consolidated for a general audience. I.e., "Rare released an update two months after release to make dialogue text more readable on standard-definition televisions." (no other context needed)
  • "400 Microsoft Points" WP:GAMECRUFT#8
  • After all we have on the developers, were there no reactions to the game leading to the company's restructuring, apart from Kirkhope's comments on it being a mistake? That aspect of its impact is ostensibly very important to cover.
    • Unfortunately, not really. I found some commentary on Rare's decline/restructuring in the late 2000s/early 2010s but not really reactions to the role Nuts & Bolts played in it. The closest I found was this Hardcore Gamer piece calling Nuts & Bolts an example of how Rare's secrecy led to their problems post-buyout, but it's far more about the company itself than this game in particular. JOEBRO64 15:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "journalists continue to characterise Nuts & Bolts as divisive" This is the type of claim that would benefit from direct quotes in the bundled ref. I.e., Noam Chomsky#Notes
  • This section is far more negative than is reflected in the lede
  • What does it mean that reviewers called it "unique"? Like what is the value assessment of that?
  • Influence paragraph: Wouldn't this fit in the section just above the Retrospective assessments? And are Retrospectives a separate topic? Making it less about enumerating what retrospectives said and more about its overall Legacy would be better for a general reader.

Overall, nicely done, though there is a fair amount that can be further summarized. czar 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar and David Fuchs: thanks for the comments! I'm chipping away at them currently. It's finals week so my editing is a little slower than normal, but it should pick up once I finish on Thursday. I'll ping you once I've addressed or replied to all comments. JOEBRO64 18:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: responded to all comments. Thank you for the thorough review! Sorry this took so long, the last week or so was incredibly chaotic so my Wiki-time was limited. The comments were extremely helpful and I'm looking forward to further work. JOEBRO64 15:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second read

  • Copy-edited as I read
  • Is there no source better than the instruction manual for those few Gameplay citations?
  • Players who own Banjo-Kazooie (1998) on the same Xbox can unlock bonus content. would seem to encompass everything that a general reader needs to know about this topic. To call it "Stop 'N' Swop" is jargon that adds heat without light, unless it's going to be discussed by that name in a way the reader needs to know it. In this case, it only comes up in the Development (a fact that also reads to me as trivia) and not the Reception. I.e., all the reader really needs to know about this is that there is some cross-over function unless another source is going to discuss its importance.
  • The WP:TITULAR essay gives a lot of bad advice, imo (the open sentences of the example article it gives is a case in point) :)
  • "their first game developed specifically for the Xbox 360 ... without Nintendo" This still doesn't register to me as important unless this fact somehow influenced what they did (which isn't said). Alternatively this could be mentioned elsewhere in the article as a stand-in for the game's name, but it feels like a random point to highlight in this paragraph that can be removed at no loss to the reader.
    • I've separated the two and moved them up to Conception in places where they have more meaning. I still think they're worth including: the Xbox 360 point connects to them wanting to wait until they felt the hardware would allow them to make a worthy Banjo game, and the Nintendo point is important for context (it was a Nintendo franchise that became a Microsoft one, this being the first Banjo game entirely developed post-acquisition, and as discussed in Release the game left a sour taste in a lot of Nintendo fans' mouths) JOEBRO64 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • reaching objectives was often the weakest part of platformers Unclear what this means: The reaching objectives was hard? Objectives were poorly designed? Objectives should be removed?
  • Rare defined and programmed the primary vehicle parts early on Seems tautological that they programmed the primary parts first. I think this whole paragraph could go at no loss to the reader, especially if it's all from a primary source.
  • The next two paragraphs similarly feel gratuitous for the same reasons—a lot of primary source detail that doesn't directly pertain to a general audience. The line on the building editor being challenging can fit into an existing paragraph and the Klungo stuff doesn't express much more than that they built exactly what it is.
  • Here's my takeaway from the "World and characters" subsection: distinctive look (environment and upscaled Kazooie), hub designed to look real (unlike the rest of the game), Loveday wrote self-deprecating humour. These points could be made in a short paragraph or two and included in the existing Design subsection.
  • In general, the Development still goes into extreme detail on topics that no secondary source found printworthy, like the paragraph on the map/hub elements, which I think can be cut at no loss to the reader. These details might be better preserved on a fan wiki, but for a general audience reader, it's too much detail. Primary sources should mainly be used to help round out key details that the reader needs but for whatever reason were left out of secondary sources, but they should almost never themselves form the majority of a paragraph or section (WP:PRIMARY#5). Want me to take some red ink to it?
  • BK fans were excited at the X06 reveal: but no actual content was shown? So is this just saying fans were excited in general? Why is that needed?
    • I've added an additional source for clarification/context: it had been years since Tooie, naturally Banjo fans were longing for a new game and were excited that it was finally happening... and then the game was revealed and it was nothing like what they'd expected. JOEBRO64 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mixed reception": bad and good (separately), or "meh"? Mixed can mean either.
  • "protracted some challenges" Clarify what challenges and made longer how?
  • "integration of the customisation" unclear what this means
  • IGN cited twice in the same paragraph re: inexperienced players
    • Whoops, my mistake—removed the second "inexperienced players" JOEBRO64
  • The GamesRadar+ interview with Mayles is from CVG so should probably link there instead
  • Reception section is much improved as a narrative—nice work
  • Players who purchased both receive the winners' vehicle blueprints by collecting the Stop 'N' Swop items in Tooie. You know what I'm going to say. :) Why would a general reader need to know this?
  • The "divisive" group citation is great
  • Reviewers said it was among the compilation's best Can you believe it?
  • The Development section's readability is the only part holding back my support. The article reads really smooth so nicely done! czar 02:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the many reasons I disagree with blanket application of WP:ELEVAR is examples like this. If the point of "ELEVAR" is to avoid confusion for readers who are unaware, what is more natural for them to see in this sentence: the name of someone who was introduced in passing in the last paragraph (and not mentioned or elaborated since) or the title of the role so that they don't need to do any cross-referencing to figure out who "Mayles" is? It's quite clear to me. czar 07:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the problem was that Mayles was only mentioned in passing, I've made him the subject of the sentence we introduce him in. We're already told Mayles led the team so I don't think we don't need to say "the game's director" here, and I actually think it's a little less clear; since we didn't introduce him as the director, it begs the question of who we're referring to. (Not to mention, the title is incorrect—he was the lead designer, not the director. Nuts & Bolts doesn't have a credited director.) JOEBRO64 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • My mistake on the specific title then but going off of "Gregg Mayles led the 71-member team" there. In any event, the way we tend to know these names is by their epithets, not their names themselves. "Mayles the lead designer" for otherwise who is "Mayles", etc. This is a side point, though. czar 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beanland and Clynick" mentioned a second time at the end of the Music section. Unintentional? In general, I think that last Music section paragraph isn't necessary or can be reduced. czar 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I've responded to all points above and made edits accordingly. Thank you for the thorough review! I hope you're having an excellent Christmas/holiday season. JOEBRO64 19:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Development section is much improved. Nicely done. Added a few points for clarification above but happy to support on prose and happy holidays to you as well! czar 22:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Comments Support from The Night Watch

[edit]

Just a few brief comments from me. Feel free to ignore any or all of the remarks if desired.

  • "Players who surpass a best score are rewarded with a trophy; collecting four trophies earns them an additional Jiggy" —What exactly is this "best score"? Does the player have to surpass their previous best score, or do they have to meet a certain pre-set score?
  • "Microsoft acquired Rare in 2002, making them part of Microsoft Game Studios, and gained the Banjo intellectual property rights from Nintendo, which had held a large minority stakein Rare during the first two games' development." —This feels like a bit of a run-on sentence, can you break this up if possible?
  • "Especial difficulty came from the user interface; Rare wanted to make building in 3D understandable,[26] and prioritised simplicity. Early editors required players to keep parts attached to vehicles or they would fall." - I’d prefer to change Especial to "Particular" and mention that it is a vehicle editor due to not everyone being familiar with that term.
  • "Malpass created the hub world, Showdown Town. The team knew that the third Banjo's hub world would be a large, singular area, unlike Banjo-Kazooie and Tooie's modular design, before the focus on vehicles had been decided." —This personally feels like three conflicting ideas. My preference would be to talk about "the team knew about ___ before the focus on vehicles would be decided" then talk about Malpass' role and why he was chosen.
  • Good job writing reception. Quite a pleasant read.

That’s all, that I have with the prose. No spot-checking done, but appears comprehensive. The Night Watch (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Night Watch: thank you for the support! Responded to your points above, I think I've resolved all of them JOEBRO64 15:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shooterwalker

[edit]

I've reviewed the article and the FA discussion. The article is well written, clear, and thorough. It does an excellent job summarizing the game's coverage, and centralizing it in an encyclopedia article. It is deserving of featured article status, pending an accessibility review and source review. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spotchecks not done

@Nikkimaria: thank you for the source review! Responded above JOEBRO64 21:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, how is this one now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to replace the Shacknews refs because I couldn't find a published editorial standards page on the site—should happen later today JOEBRO64 18:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC) done JOEBRO64 01:06, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the question re: credits is still pending? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, didn't notice that one—I've addressed it, @Nikkimaria: JOEBRO64 19:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 5 January 2023 (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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Banjo-Kazooie:_Nuts_%26_Bolts/archive1&oldid=1131922385"