Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Capcom Five/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 23:20, 20 March 2012 [1].

Capcom Five

Featured article candidates/Capcom Five/archive1

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FAC criteria. It was promoted to GA and I am prepared to address any concerns about the gap between GA and FA. With this article, I tried to place the Capcom Five in its proper historical context—part of the ongoing relationship between Nintendo and Capcom. Hope you like it! Axem Titanium (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Mark Arsten moved to talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Alright, at this point I think all of the issues that I was able to find have been satisfied and I'm now willing to support this article's promotion to featured status. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks a lot for all your helpful comments! Axem Titanium (talk) 06:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. ~~Comment:~~ The article looks in good shape and I'm leaning towards supporting it (though I would say that, I reviewed it at GAN). I've tackled most of the overlinking thanks to Ucucha's script; I've left the links to the individual games in their relevant headings there for the time being but I'm now thinking that perhaps unlinking them there and using {{Main}} to provide the same navigational function would be a better approach. GRAPPLE X 12:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I feel that adding Main links might disrupt the flow more than it needs to (it's already suboptimal to have the 3rd level headings for each game). Do you notice any prose issues? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've kept an eye on the changes being made here, and I'm more than willing to support now. Nice work, and I'd love to see this as the head of a featured topic some time in the future. GRAPPLE X 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Axem Titanium (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"to reach a wider audience and maximize profitability" - source?
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check for typos in references (ex. FN 7) and minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
- Those doubled periods are because passing in "Foo Inc." into the publisher parameter of cite web doesn't remove the excess period. I just removed the Incs. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This?
- Nintendojo. Destructoid is a "situational source" according to WP:VG/S; the Destructoid article is by Jim Sterling, who also works for IGN UK (he also authored Fn 79). Looking into others... Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I've been absent this week. Two presentations, whew! Anyway, I replaced the NerdMentality ref with one from VG247, which is approved by WP:VG/S. I also replaced Pietriots with Edge magazine. I removed Brainy Gamer, Infendo, and N-Europe. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, thanks. The Nintendojo discussion you link suggests it is situational, so need a bit more info on why that would apply here. Could you also link the VG/S discussion for VG24/7? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - VG247. The Nintendojo article was written by Adam Sorice, who has since been promoted to co-Editor-in-Chief, which suggests that he has been praised for his editorial oversight. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This link returns an error message - check for and fix broken links
- Argh. The archive link used to work! Commented out. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using publisher or homepage
- Not sure what you mean here. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think she means the work parameter. You should stick to either publisher or work, not switch between them. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok. I think I fixed that. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also in how those are formatted - compare FNs 82 and 84 or 65. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, I missed one. They should be consistent now. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fn 24, 46: page(s)?
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fn 37: too many IGNs
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check for wikilinking consistency
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FN 44: issue?
- Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with all your copyedits. What were you looking for in changing tone? Axem Titanium (talk) 16:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The spots I flagged - "another episode in Nintendo's perennial quest", for example - seem rather journalistic in tone. Try to word them a bit more formally. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I tried to work on the tone. What do you think? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Better, but I'm not crazy about the "series is a symbol" verbiage, nor about "Learning from this experience, Capcom discovered a few principles..." Nikkimaria (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright, I did some more compressing. How about now? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Much better. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Good to hear. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support well-written and instructive article (and good to see that despite the subject, only one non-free image is used...). igordebraga ≠ 13:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I'm glad you liked it. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crisco 1492 comments:

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page.
Support: Very nice indeed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will post a spotcheck when I get home (~6h from now), I have one half-completed (didn't have time to finish this morning). Clay^Clay _Clay 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Spotcheck of some high-density sources (1, 3, 4, 21, 22, 37)[reply]

No problems: 1(a, d through h), 3(all), 4(b through e), 21(a, b), 22(a, b, d), 37c
Misrepresentation:
- 1b) Source: "The arrival of the PlayStation in the mid-90's had seen Capcom shift much of its attention to Nintendo's rival, with games like Resident Evil helping put Sony's console on the map."
  Article: "Due to increased manufacturing costs and severely limited cartridge memory capacity, many third parties—Capcom included—moved to the PlayStation to start new franchises, such as Resident Evil."
  Notes: The source states Capcom specifics, and doesn't mention general motivation behind the move (which is likely to be disputed). Ref #3 can probably be used to support this.
  - Probably got sources #1 and 3 confused somehow. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 4f) Source: "The game revolves around a warrior and takes place on a floating ancient city. The warrior must slay monsters and other disgusting creations that inhabit the world."
  Article: "Capcom's announcement described the setting as a mythical floating city, full of demons and dragons."
  Notes: Described as "monsters" in source, then "demons and dragons" in article.
  - Must have misplaced a ref here. It's in ref #25. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 22c) Source: Talks about struggles in the overseas market
  Article: "The first was to focus on multi-platform releases and avoid GameCube where possible."
  Notes: Source says nothing about avoiding GameCube, just about multiplatform releases.
  - Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not in source:
- 1c) Article: This third-party abandonment allowed the PlayStation to outsell the Nintendo 64 during that console generation.
  Notes: Source says nothing about N64. Could also probably be covered by ref #3.
  - As I said, I probably got these confused while I had 20+ tabs open. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 21c) Article: These ports were generally inferior in quality: many reviewers noted slowdown issues and lower resolution graphics.
  Notes: This sentence is supported by two other citations, removing would be appropriate in this case.
  - What do you mean? Should I leave it uncited? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 37b) Article: Mikami was also upset by the port because it went against his promise to GameCube fans.
  Note: The source mentions nothing about his being upset.
  - Found another source which is more explicit about his reaction. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Random (not sourcing problems, per se):
- 4a) The text is in one big block quote in the article, but in the source it is split up into 3 paragraphs. Do you think you could format it like in the source, so it isn't such a wall of text?
  - Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 37a) Source: "...in which he promised to "cut his own head off" if the game ever made it to another platform."
  Article: "...Mikami claimed that he would "cut off his own head" (a Japanese colloquialism for quitting his job) if it were to be released on another platform."
  Notes: Direct quote means quoting directly.
  - Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I originally intended to support, but I kept running into problems (~1/4 misrepresentation/not in source); neither will I oppose, as I contend it is a superb read, and as far as I have read on the subject the information is accurate. I think, though, that you should check over the rest of the multiply-cited sources and some of the more controversial statements to make sure there are no glaring errors. Clay^Clay _Clay 07:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just went through the whole article again and all of its sources to make sure I didn't make any other silly source misplacements like that. It should be all in order now. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I am happy with the changes made, just checked ref #47 (4 cites) and no errors to be found. Great job on this article! Clay^Clay _Clay 18:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Also, thanks for your kind words about the prose. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Thank you for your source spotcheck, Clay. I couldn't see a dedicated media check but as there are only two images, I decided to review them for myself and am satisfied with the licensing/usage. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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