Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Batman: Arkham Asylum/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 Ian Rose 10:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

Batman: Arkham Asylum

Batman: Arkham Asylum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Batman: Arkham Asylum/archive1

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Arkham Asylum, I am Warden Sharpe. Here you will be treated for the maladies and criminal tendencies that separate you from normal society. Psychopathic killers, crazed monsters, and drug-addled terrorists, all will find hope here in Arkham Asylum. Your struggles with supporting this nomination will find relief in our state of the art electro-shock therapy suite. Such detachment from reality is the result of a sad and broken world, but here we will nurse you back to health, transforming you into an obedient, productive member of society liberated from derangement, and free to pursue a life of religious fulfillment. Arkham Asylum, we hope you enjoy your stay.

Fun aside, Batman: Arkham Asylum is a Good Article which I have significantly expanded over several months and now believe to be the best it can be on par with it's FA brother Batman: Arkham City. I believe this article competently covers material relating to the game, and that it meets the FA standards. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808

Support as per comments below. --JDC808 ♫ 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to try and start my review tomorrow. By the way, once again, great intro. --JDC808 ♫ 08:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done copy-editing throughout.

Lead

• End of third paragraph, maybe mention Arkham Origins too? Maybe something like "A prequel, Batman: Arkham Origins, is set for release in October 2013."
  • It's not a direct prequel and I think that just encourages the adding of all additional sequels that are released. The Series itself is linked twice immediately, in the infobox and Lead, and the directly related, next sequel is linked at the end. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Sounds reasonable. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Development

• Last paragraph before "Design". This paragraph talks about several ideas that were cut from this game. It also talks about how they developed ideas for Arkham City. Since some ideas that were cut from Arkham Asylum appeared in Arkham City (e.g., Mr. Freeze, Mad Hatter), it might be a good idea to mention that although they were cut from Arkham Asylum, they were used in Arkham City.
  • The ideas weren't really used, just the characters, doesn't seem notable to just say the characters appeared in a later game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • "Batman would find the Mad Hatter hosting a tea-party" -- That was used in Arkham City. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I'll try to find a reference for his Arkham City tea party that can be used to back that up.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Okay, if you can't, not a problem. --JDC808 ♫ 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Release

• Although it's covered as exclusive to PS3 in the DLC section, shouldn't it be mentioned that the retail copy for PS3 included the Joker? It's been a few years, but didn't it include a voucher code for him? Or was that just a sticker saying he's exclusive to PS3? I bought the game when it came out and I thought it had a voucher code inside. (I can't personally check because I don't own it anymore, not because I didn't like it. I loved it. After I unlocked everything in the story and beat most of the challenges, I was done.)
  • The method of delivery doesn't seem notable, the important info is that it was exclusive to the PS3, and I think it was just on the disc with the GOTY version. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Accolades

• I haven't fully compared it, but it looks like the first paragraph has every award/nomination listed in the table. So, is the table necessary? If you really want to keep the table, I would suggest trimming back some awards/nominations in that first paragraph. Or, remove them all from that paragraph and open it with something like "Batman: Arkham Asylum received numerous awards, such as (name a couple). It has also received several nominations, such as (name a couple)." Then continue this paragraph with the rest of the paragraph beginning with the "According to Metacritic," sentence and merge the second paragraph. --JDC808 ♫ 00:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The table is an alternative overview, it's a similar setup to FA Arkham City. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay. Still seems unnecessary as it's two lists of the same stuff. It's not something that'll keep me from supporting though. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

THanks for the comments, I unfortunately lost net access almost as soon as I posted this nomination, so I will get to work on it soon. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Hellknowz

• How do you determine the publishers for G4 references? For example, "XPlay review" is XPlay and not G4? Where does XPlay come into this?
• "PSNBatcave" work should be PlayStation Blog not "playstation.com".
• "Dev2", "RevGameSpot", "SequelComic1" work should be GameSpot.
• "RevNYT" is The New York Times, not Daily Telegraph.
• "Setting10" uses Future Publishing while everyone else Future plc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I fixed the last 4, the first I switched both publishers to NBC Universal, is that OK? I tend to use the publisher at the very top of the chain. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, I see, it is X-Play with a dash. I searched "XPlay" on that site and it didn't get any hits, so I couldn't understand where that came from and I didn't check the article properly so I didn't know this was their show, I was looking for some parent company. It's probably ought to be |work=X-Play under |publisher=G4? But since {{cite web}} is using |website= as an alias for |work= now, I have no clear idea how these are supposed to be used. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Ok I changed it to G4, I didn't know they'd added a website field but it seems kind of pointless when you have a URL field. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• "interviews with some of Arkham's inmates" - interview tapes, not actual interviews
• I would say Synopsis goes before Gameplay, as plot explains the story and what happens and gameplay then deals with details of how the player plays through what happens.
• "Amadeus Arkham" - first mention doesn't explain who that is
• "the system went through three iterations" should probably be said before actually going through the iterations, so 2 sentences before.
• "3 Scarecrow areas" probably means a more explicit explanation these are the areas the player plays in while hallucinating
• I feel like there should be a link to Batman's utility belt somewhere, gadgets being a large focus of the game.
• "GameRankings and Metacritic gave" - they don't give scores, they calculate them
• ""excellent visuals, a compelling story and superb voice acting."" should be paraphrased, as there are a lot of quotes there
• ""Even if you were controlling a generic ninja rather than an iconic superhero, this would be a polished and engrossing game."" and ""Rocksteady have struck the perfect balance of giving you the confident power of a superhero, but with enough weaknesses to make the game challenging; a remarkable feat of balancing and design"" are both long quotes that can be paraphrased easily
• ""one of the things I wanted to do was capture..."" is way too long of a quote
• Lead says "Arkham Asylum's success launched a series of Batman: Arkham sequels", but Sequel section makes no mention of this

@Darkwarriorblake: I wasn't sure, but I think you may have missed my comments amidst everything else. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I had missed the added comments, I will take a look. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Support. I'm usually nitpicky, but this is a well-written and covered article. I have also played the game to completion, so I can vouch for completeness. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed some of your issues. The gameplay before synopsis is a pretty standard layout and I think enough context is given in the gameplay to suffice. The gameranking and metacritic wording I think is OK, and it is the same wording used in Arkham City's article, it makes clear they are aggregating review sites and not themselves reviewing bodies.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Missed your support, thanks Hellknowz, I am losing it lately O_O. I forgot to address the sequel issue, I have made a small change to try to. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate in support or oppose, but I will say that the rationales for the gameplay images are not acceptable. They both claim the same thing - "demonstration of gameplay" - a rationale that's not very good for one image, and very bad to use for two. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

On a quick glance, agree. In addition, I think the second image is not unique enough (i.e. other games have done this or similar) to be more than 1 fair use image. The first one shows unique gameplay though, so that is more than suitable to be included under fair use. Besides expanding details on it, further explanation includes that this is 1 of several unique "detective" modes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed one and improved the rationale on the other, though I don't know why you wouldn't want to support the article Hippie. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I don't want to support the article, it's that I haven't the time to review it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from FutureTrillionaire

As far as I can tell, all the sources in the article are reliable, except for Monsters and Critics. See these two RSN discussions: [2] [3]. The source should be removed (and replaced if necessary).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Would Comic Vine be OK? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 7#Jill Valentine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

How about MacRumors? Running low on options/. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the reliability of MacRumors (See [4]). The first two sentences are the Sequels section consist of what appears to be basic information about the sequel. Which part are you having finding sources for? Is it the "set one year after..." part? There's an IGN source for that:[5].--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

For the love of... I've been searching for an hour for a source for that. Thanks FutureTrillionaire, no thanks Google. Changed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about this, but I am now taking a wikibreak. I will return to finish reviewing the sources in a few days.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm back. I've spot-checked about 20 sources, and didn't find any issues except for this one part. At the end of the first paragraph in the Accolades section, there are three citations that are the same and lead to the same webpage. Also, the sentences about the metacritic rankings are misleading. For example, how is "Arkham Asylum ... tied with God of War Collection and Forza Motorsport 3 as the fourth-highest-rated game of 2009" when there are seven games with a higher score? Shouldn't the sentence say "...eighth-highest-rated...?" The PlayStation 3 ranking is problematic for the same reason. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

If I may, the scores as indicated in the article are correct. You were probably looking at the number of games listed and not the scores. If you look at the scores, Uncharted 2 is first with 96, then the next three games each have a score of 94, making them tied as the second-highest-rated, then the next three each have a score of 93 making those tied as the third-highest-rated, then the last three (which includes Arkham) each have a score of 92, making them tied as the fourth-highest-rated. --JDC808 ♫ 20:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, the webcites were correct so I must've copied the completed cite template but not updated the URL. I'm not a fan of that ranking style but I've been challenged on it two to three times so I've deferred to the popular opinion which is as JDC described above. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Article looks good. I don't see any other issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Future for taking time out from your wikibreak! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Image check

Image check - all OK (fair-use infobox and gameplay, CC, Flickr with no problems). Sources and authors provided, fair-use has already been improved. GermanJoe (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

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