Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:41, 15 November 2008 [1].

---

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

Nominator(s): User:Gary King

previous FAC (02:21, 30 May 2008)

It's been five months since the last nomination. I think this is ready now. Gary King (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree - Much has been done to improve the article, all articles worded properly and appropriately sourced, formatting correct, redirects perfect etc: Generally written of very high quality standard. IMO, it deserves the promotion to Featured class.--Dark dude (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

• Images - Both non-free, with rationales and appropriate, no major problems. Cover one is fine, it would be nicer to have a bit more fleshed out in the gameplay one but it hits the right points. --MASEM 22:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Nicely researched and generally well-written. (I fixed a few clumsy phrases, but I think it could benefit from a thorough CE. Not enough for an oppose vote here, though.) I worry that we – the Wikipedia VG community – might rely too much on IGN as a sort of gospel. In a way, this sort of makes sense, given their status in the field of VG reviews. Still, it seems to me that GameSpot and 1UP might be equally valid sources (and good for diversity).

I also feel like there's more to be said about these games – but you did all the research, so you'd know better than I what's available. Nice work overall, and forgive me for not taking a more definite stand. Scartol • Tok 23:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Support a great article, seems good enough to join the FA (I could say the Gameplay section is short, specially compared to an FA one, but since only the "straight facts" are needed and the main Metroid article and that one linked list other details, it doesn't matter). igordebraga ≠ 01:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Support looks good to me, although I admit I'm sometimes blind to spelling/1a issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes http://www.mobygames.com/game/wii/metroid-prime-3-corruption/credits a reliable source?
• Also, related to the above, I don't see that the source listed above supports the statement "Metroid Prime 3: Corruption is the first game in the Metroid series to feature full voice acting, although previous games in the series used limited voice acting to varying degrees."

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think MobyGames is considered to be reliable because of the many books that reference it. However, I've replaced it anyways per your second point, with a GamePro magazine article. The article states "Another odd addition is the copious voice acting implemented in Corruption. Part of the charm of the Metroid series was the feeling that Samus acting alone--she always came across as a lone wolf--surveying a planet on her own, with nothing to rely on but her skills and instincts." which is currently backing up the statement "Metroid Prime 3: Corruption is the first game in the Metroid series to feature a significant amount of voice acting, compared to previous games in the series in which Samus "[acted] alone [... and] always came across as a lone wolf"." Gary King (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Guyinblack25

It was a good read and looks like a very interesting game. I'll have to pick it up some day. Here are some issues which stood out to me.

• The lead could use some tweaking
  • The commas threw me off the first time I read this sentence, and I wasn't sure where the spin off titles spun off from. I think an emdash would solves this. "the final entry in the Metroid Prime trilogy, excluding two spin-off titles."
  • The only dates listed in the lead are the North American and European ones. No love for Japan?
  • On a similar note, I don't think the full dates are needed in the lead. That's what the infobox is for. I would tweak the sentence to: "It was released in North America and Europe in 2007, and in Japan the following year."
• The terminology could use some tweaking too.
  • I would link to Circle strafing somewhere in the "Gameplay" section, just to offer more explanation to a concept not easily understood through text.
  • Unlockable in the "Setting" section is something someone unfamiliar with games may not understand. Try something like, "accessible after completing certain in-game tasks".
• Minor prose suggestions
  • "ends abruptly" or "abruptly ends"? I'm not entirely sure which is more appropriate here or if either one is more appropriate. Any thoughts?
  • I've never been a fan of "herself/himself" and find it generally doesn't add much. "...destroy the Leviathan Seed before she herself is incapacitated."
  • In the "Release and reception" section, "The "month of Metroid" as named by Nintendo included..." seems like it's missing commas or emdashes.
• Sources
  • I think the instruction book should be cited with {{cite book}}. It also has url, accessdate, and format parameters to link to the web version.
  • What makes Nintendo World Report a reliable source?
  • Ref 19 from Edge, should have their name in italics since they are a magazine.
  • Ref 36-40, the Best/Top awards should probably list the dates as 2007 if no other date is available.
  • Any more info on Ref 42, the Famitsu references?

Overall, I think the article is in good shape and is close to FA quality. I'll check back in later to check on the progress. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

All done. Nintendo World Report has been referenced by several other reliable sources in the past, including GamePro, Fairfax New Zealand, and GameStar, to name a few. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My that was fast. One last thing. Ref 38- "IGN Best of 2007: Best Adventure Game" has two dates listed in the template. Which is the correct one? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Fixed Gary King (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Support: All my concerns have been addressed. I believe the article to be well written, factually accurate, well sourced, and of Featured quality. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

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