Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System)/archive2

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 SandyGeorgia 22:20, 12 June 2010 [1].

Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System)

[edit]

Ninja Gaiden (Nintendo Entertainment System) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): –MuZemike 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second attempt at FA for this Nintendo Entertainment System classic. While there were relatively little comment on the previous FAC attempt a little over 3 months ago, the sole oppose had concerns about not meeting 1b, which after looking back I completely agree. Since the last FAC attempt (version at the end of the last FAC, [2]), the article has been greatly expanded in all directions, including 17KB more material (8KB more of written prose and about 1400 more words); coverage from 1989 is now provided to the point in which this should easily meet 1b.

Some background information about the article: this video game basically launched the Ninja Gaiden franchise and is considered one of the best NES titles of all time. The gameplay mechanics and animated sequences were revolutionary at the time.

And finally, as I have mentioned in all my previous trips to FAC, of the 131 video game FAs currently, not one of them is on a game for the NES which, having grown up in the "NES generation", is shocking and sad. I'm hoping that we can break that mold right here with this article. –MuZemike 16:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those were mistakes on my part, as the images are as small and low as resolution you can possibly get (FURs corrected [3] and [4]). As far as the usage of the one image, if I remove it, would having only the boxart and gameplay images be sufficient enough to meet criterion 3? –MuZemike 19:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If absolutely necessary to have an additional (free) image in there, I could include Seth Godin's (publisher of the game's novelization for Worlds of Power) image (File:Seth Godin.jpg) in the "Other appearances" section, provided that is relevant enough to the given material in that section. –MuZemike 19:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To your first question: I think the gameplay shot could use some expansion to its rationale, but it's valid; as to free images, you can go crazy, as far as rules go. Whether or not the images are relevant enough is your call (although the Seth Godin image you linked should be deleted as copyvio, as the description clearly says it's supposed to be a NC-license and thus invalid for Wikipedia. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fuchs is correct—the licenses allow commercial use, but Godin only granted rights "to use online in any non-commercial way" (says the Author field), which doesn't cut it for those licenses or Commons in general. If he's not dead or reclusive, there's no "non-free" room either. It's gotta go byebye. :( --an odd name 21:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just talked to a couple of admins on Commons, and after looking at that image's history, the "non-commercial" part wasn't part of the original upload. commons:User:Krinkle over at Commons reverted the "non-commercial" part, (Actually, I was in the process of restoring the image here when that was discovered, causing me to re-delete the image here.) so I would think that would be good now. I am also uploading an image of him that is only tagged as CC-BY-SA 2.0 on Flickr to Commons if there are any additional doubts (and because you can, provided attribution is provided and it's not NC, which it isn't). –MuZemike 21:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: A few very trivial points:-

  • Ref 8:The "cite journal" template doesn't identify page numbers as such, unless you out "p." or "pp." in the field. In this case it would be appropriate to enter "pp. 20–30" in the field, otherwise nobody knows what "20–30" refers to.
Fixed. –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23: Needs the publisher (I know it's IGN, and the title begins "IGN presents...", but consistency requires that the publisher be listed.
It helps when you spell "publisher" correctly ;) –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26: The "pp." point again. Also, "issue= 0": if this means that issues are un-numbered, best to simply omit this field.
It actually says "Issue 0" on the magazine's cover; that (Issue 0) is also referenced in Ref #5 in the second coverage by Mean Machines (page 68 under the "Ninja Binge" section). –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 38: See 8 above
Fixed. –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39: See 8 above
Fixed. –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 40: No title, no page range?
I'm trying to reference the actual magazine's cover, which I'm not sure how to handle that as far as verifiability is concerned. Alternatively, I could just leave out the citation completely if it's that trivial. –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think just saying "front cover" as the page would work; I've edited it accordingly. --an odd name 22:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 41 onward the page number identification occurs repeatedly so I won't list them all.
Fixed. –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used look pretty mainstream to me, but it would be good if an editor with experience of video game articles at FAC could comment on their reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added in "p. X" or "pp. Y" for consistency and corrected the one "publisher" error. Relevant diff for the above corrections is [5]. –MuZemike 21:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smart work on above fixes. Brianboulton (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  12:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Manual in reference should link to the corresponding reference entry.
Not sure what you are getting at. Much of the citations in the first few sections go to the manual, in which I used shorthand citations to reduce redundancy. I then put the full citation down in the "References" section. That should be consistent with WP:CITE. –MuZemike 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will try and change it myself to show what I meant. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nine, F.X.; Singer, A.L." - there should be a space between first names.
Fixed. –MuZemike 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25 says p. p.
Fixed. –MuZemike 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 61, 76 - I'm not sure on this, but should IGN Staff be author? It seems that an editor would be better.
If we knew who the specific editor was, but unfortunately they did not disclose that. That should not make the reference any less reliable as a result. –MuZemike 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I'm not concerned about reliability. I meant use editor= field instead of author= field. Of course I was being stupid and cite web doesn't have editor, that's just for books. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk 
  • Ref 31 author Fletcher, JC - it says so on site but is JC first name?
I did change to "J. C.", but again that's all it says. –MuZemike 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not following what you mean on that one. I can't tell if the issue is overlinking or underlinking; I thought once in the citation list is sufficient and is consistent in how it's linked in the article prose. By the way, the diff of the above corrections I made is [6]. –MuZemike 00:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant underlinking. Correct me if I am wrong and only first instance should be linked. I assumed references are usually very scattered and sources not in sequence, so every instance is to be linked. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  00:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as using the "work" as opposed to "publisher" in the {{cite web}} template, this has been discussed at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of The Legend of Zelda media/archive1 and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 72#Premade VG citation templates. From my understanding, the common practice and rough consensus has been to use the "publisher" field, especially within video game articles. Other relevant discussions which haven't yielded much fruit have been at Template talk:Cite web/Archive 6#Work and publisher and currently ongoing at Template talk:Cite web#"Work" vs "Publisher" parameters. –MuZemike 01:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know about not fixing not-broken, and I only pointed out obvious misspellings or redirects that are unlikely to have separate articles.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I fixed that and added one link as noted above with the exception of "ninpo". [7] suggests that "ninpo" is different from "ninjutsu", even though that distinction is not made in the ninjutsu article. Hence, I think it's better to go by what the source says, which is "ninpo". –MuZemike 17:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unfamiliar about this, therefore I asked with a question mark, so no quarrel.—  Hellknowz  ▎talk  17:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; this looks to meet FA standard after the previous FAC. Good work on the large reception section for this relatively old game. One comment: You may wish to change the section title "Other appearances" to "Other media" or "Related media". Tezero (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and changed that heading to "Related media" here as it does make more sense and is what is in many other related FAs. –MuZemike 03:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:Ninja Gaiden (NES).jpg, "To identify and illustrate the game or program in its own article or a closely related article.", boiler plating of a FU rationale is far from acceptable, fails wp:nfcc, fails FAC3, oppose Fasach Nua (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Made more specific as far as the purpose of the boxart is concerned. –MuZemike 20:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Fasach Nua to re-evaluate the Oppose, given the length of time since your response. --an odd name 15:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport. This article is 99% of the way there. My objection is that the development section is slightly incomplete and incorrect. There is an interview at http://hg101.kontek.net/ninjagaiden/ninjagaiden9.htm with an artist on the first game. While most of the interview relates to the second and third games in which this individual had a larger role, he gives some information on the first including on a Mr. Yoshizawa, whom he considers the father of the series for deciding the game should have a story. Yoshizawa was also the writer of the story, but the article credits Sakurazaki instead. There is also an interesting story about how having to start the last chapter from the beginning if you lost against the final boss resulted from an unintended bug. Once the information from the interview is incorporated (I know I could do it, but I figure the nominator should put it in there in the manner he wants) then I think it will be good to go. Indrian (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The interview was originally used as a source for the timing of the releases of both the arcade and NES version [8], but the reliability of that source is questionable and was questioned in the previous FAC. The author of these series of pages is "derboo", which according to the site's main page, he is the "catalog administrator". The site's head editor is Kurt Kalata, who is a contributor (articles, that is) to 1UP.com, Gamasutra, and Sliconera. The guidelines here seem to suggest that the content of the site is generated by users. That's why the source was removed because of its shaky reliability as a source. –MuZemike 19:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the individual in question was author of the material, that would be one thing, but since this is an interview, I really do not see the issue. Do you have some reason to doubt that the interview itself is authentic? Indrian (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User-generated content (as far as I can tell) is basically self-published. By that SPS section and SELFPUB just below (both part of the Verifiability policy), a self-pub'd interview would basically be an even bigger red flag, because it claims that an important third party (in this case, Masato Kato) said those things.
My concern about hg101 is not whether the authors hide behind aliases (see GamePro until recently) but whether there's fact-checking. The site looks useful, but I just don't know what their fact-check policies (if they have them) are. The submission guidelines MuZemike linked above say little or nothing on those (let alone whether they differ between contributors and HG staff like "derboo"). Lacking those, I'd consider it just another fansite (however insightful). --an odd name 20:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the time being, I placed them in (diffs: [9], [10], and [11]). I'll let a rough consensus form as to whether or not it's reliable. I'll be happy to revert/remove if it's deemed not reliable. –MuZemike 20:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that it is verified via reliable sources (via an interview with him on Klonoa: Door to Phantomile as well as his personal blog on IGN) that "Sakurazaki" is Hideo Yoshizawa. –MuZemike 20:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I personally think the interview is reliably authentic since the editor of the site appears to be a trusted journalist himself (in other words, I would expect him to make sure that he was actually posting a real interview), and an interview consists of direct quotes from the subject rather than truly user-generated content, but I do agree it is borderline and obviously if there is an outcry you should not be penalized for failing to use it as a source. Furthermore, since you have been able to correct the naming issue through other sources, the interview is not really strctly necessary at this point anyway. I withdraw my objection. Indrian (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full support Support on all but criteria 3 by an odd name—two comments

  • Check the File:Seth Godin.jpg page again, there's a "missing evidence" tag and a comment by Jappalang.
  • I wonder if the "Some reviewers appreciated the redrawn graphics" sentence actually belongs in Reception or Legacy, and if the "In its preview of Ninja Gaiden II: The Dark Sword of Chaos" one should go in Legacy (because it was more a reflection on the good ol' days of Part 1 given the upcoming Part 2). Minor, though.

Otherwise good. I went through and corrected and tweaked a few text things but the prose looks nice and crisp. There's a lot to see here about the game and its re-releases and adaptations, and "Gameplay" and "Plot" agree with reality. The sources all look good and reliable, and I don't see any sort of POV-ness. Structure looks good (no odd "Overview" or "Trivia" sections, or glut of small sections) and refs look consistent. Once the Godin image is confirmed free (or removed), you can consider me a full support because the non-frees have good rationales. --an odd name 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I switched that image out with File:Seth Godin 2009.jpg, which has a valid CC-BY-SA 2.0 license ([12]). –MuZemike 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and with that, I think we are good to go. --an odd name 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After seeing that this had been nominated, and examining its high praise from reviewers thus far, I went to look it over for possible issues. The article seems to be FA-quality in its research; unfortunately, I think the prose is a little iffy. I noticed problems with redundancy and informal voice, and, occasionally, with punctuation and information overload. The diff on my rough copyedit of the first four paragraphs is a good indication of what I'm referring to. Do not consider this to be an opposing vote, however; my Wikipedia time too limited to go through the checklisting-assisting-supporting process that an opposition entails. I'm only pointing this out so that other reviewers can examine the article from a different perspective. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look at the prose when I get time today (I have a peer review, a GAN, and a baseball game to do today). I will note that [13] has some errors also, including a comma splice and introduces more passive voice – something I was trying to avoid (i.e. "Players lose a life when ..." as opposed to "A "life" is lost when ..."). –MuZemike 14:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out the "comma splice" portion there as I did not realize what I saw was an appositive, which is okay to set off with commas (or with dashes or even without commas). –MuZemike 16:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Started on some general copyediting lead, gameplay, and plot. More coming later on today. –MuZemike 17:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and finished up with development and reception/legacy. (I didn't see anything that stuck out in the "Other appearances" section.) The material in the latter half of the article is newer and was probably written better from the start than the first half. –MuZemike 19:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "Didn't quite get this sentence from Plot: "Walter then tells Ryu of an evil demon that "SHINOBE" defeated and confined its power into two "Light" and "Shadow" demon statues." SHINOBE confined the power? If so, the sentence is not 100% clear on that point. It could stand a re-write.
  • Amazon doesn't need multiple links in this section.
  • "that he was the one who dueled with Ryu's father and, that his father is still alive, and that Ryu will meet him as he presses onward." Something feels off here; I think it's the first "and", which seems to be making this awkward.
  • Development: The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles link currently goes to a page on the entire series. On a glance, an appropriate article for the individual game should exist and could be linked instead.
  • Other appearances: Drop-down tables such as the track listing here are discouraged by accessibility guidelines. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with removing the show/hide function; the text is substantial enough that it won't be overwhelmed by the list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Made the corrections in the first three points here. As far as the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" are concerned, I think the context of that what the article (and the source) meant was the entire series itself (i.e. the entire series became "Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles" when it reached Europe). I don't have much a problem undoing the collapsible table for the discography, but I have WP:LAYOUT concerns if I also do that to the infobox. That gameplay image would have to be virtually moved down to the Plot section, which is also not a good thing to do as the image is not next to the text in which it's attributing. –MuZemike 01:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discography table was what I meant. I didn't even notice the one in the infobox until the response, and agree that it would cause more trouble than it's worth to uncollapse that one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I went ahead and un-collapsed the discography table here. –MuZemike 15:55, 8 June 2010 (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/Ninja_Gaiden_(Nintendo_Entertainment_System)/archive2&oldid=1089084021"