Talk:Castle Crashers/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   There are some wordings that should be clarified to avoid confusion for the reader.

   • The article mentions "the king", but doesn't explain anything else. Is he the king of the whole medieval universe or the four knight's king? If the game provides no addition information, refer to the character first as "a king", then "the king" for subsequent mentions.
   • The term "level" is used to describe the stage and the character's stat advancement. I would use "stage" to avoid confusion.
   • Is "Arena" the name of the minigame? Also, I would explicitly state that this game is in both versions. The current sentence doesn't seem to flow well without the context.
   • Watch out for player/character usage. The player controls the character, and the character does the actions and has the attributes. For example, the player doesn't have a magic level, the character does.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Here are my concerns

   • I'm not sure how the YouTube videos fall under Wikipedia definition of a reliable source. The original publishers don't seem to qualify as reliable sources, but the sources are video interviews of the developers.
   • What makes the following sources reliable?
     • Dustin Burg from Joystiq
     • Stuart Houghton from Kotaku
     • Luke Plunkett from Kotaku
   • There are a few other sources I would question, but they are used strictly for their opinion, which I believe is the accepted practice.
   • Also the video game is cited alot for the first two sections. Did any of the reviews provide details that you could use in addition to the game citations?

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The FURs of File:CastleCrashers artDevelopment.png and File:CastleCrashers gameplay.png are too sparse. The descriptions and purposes of use need to be expanded.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The captions are good, but I think the infobox image should also have a caption because it illustrates the main characters and their different weapons. The image is already there so might as well use it help explain things. Your call.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm requesting a second opinion because of the YouTube videos. The other issues are relatively minor and shouldn't be too difficult to address. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC))

I did most of the B-class editing bringing it close to GAN, but someone else nominated it. I actually am no longer focused on getting GA-class articles, so I won't be making changes. I just wanted to notify other editors in case they check through the history. The prose updates and FUR expansions I have no problem with, but I have little desire to justify or replace questioned sources. I have definite opinions on whether certain sources are reliable but others disagree. I've posted rebuttals below though. --Teancum (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

• In regards to YouTube interviews with developers see previous consensus.
• Dustin Burg cites the developer's blog for the Frost King article, I don't see why in this case the author would be an issue. The second cites the xbox.com forums, but this in turn cites Newgrounds, which is the development community that holds copyright to the soundtrack

The first YouTube video should be acceptable as it is just that – an interview. It may not necessarily come from a reliable source, but the interview occurred nonetheless. The only other question is whether or not this is Dan Paladin, which I would bank a month's pay that it is.

For the GamerVision one I found a link what would be their video on their website at [1], but I can't get the video to run; I'm sure that's from that URL, though. Anyways, I think they both should be acceptable as long as the material in the article is consistent with what is in the interview itself. –MuZemike 22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, not to butt too much into the GA review itself, but ratings really shouldn't be mentioned in the article (if they have their own "Reception box" for that), especially in the lead. Readers aren't interested in seeing a whole bunch of numbers when they read the lead; it's better or have an overview of the reception of the game instead, without giving rating numbers. –MuZemike 22:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I agree with the comment about the youtube video and the numbers in the lead. But I know that other editors like to include them in prose even if they are in a review table. I'll leave that part up to the contributors.

Typically, if a source is citing another source, then it is best to cite the original source. Regardless, I typically question authors I don't recognize from our situational sources. I struck Plunkett because I've since remembered his credentials. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC))

I'd disagree about aggregate numbers in the lead. If the lead is supposed to summarize the article, then the shortest way to summarize opinion would be to add aggregate scores, sales, and overall opinions of the game, which is what the reader would look for. In my opinion far to many GA/FA articles don't provide the reader with what they're looking for in the lead, but rather give the reader some eloquent oration that doesn't summarize what they're looking for, but what veteran Wikipedians want to see. (sorry if that feels abrasive, it's something that bothers me) --Teancum (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Request - If the original nominator doesn't come back and make fixes and you're about to fail the article, please notify me before doing so and I'll try to save it. I'm rather busy, but since it seems to be close there's no point in letting it fail. I don't have time to touch it this minute, but if it's going to fail I'll make time. --Teancum (talk) 16:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Can do. I'll also give the review extra time if needed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC))
    • Oh hai, no I didn't forget this. I made the changes regarding the level issue. Feel free to notify. Takeo™ 11:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• Grabbed the "Arena" issue.
• Not sure how to handle the soundtrack issue. A primary source? Some reliable sources list the file or even host it, but there's not a lot of news on it. See Shacknews. The primary source could work, no?
• Replaced one Joystiq reference with the developer's blog.
• The Patch reference (Stuart Houghton of Kotaku) leads to a PAX 2008 interview at Joystiq. Since it's an interview would that pass? It's also used later, so for now I've just merged the two refs as one.

Let me know on these issues, and if you could take a quick reassess on current issues and mark out what's done that'd be awesome. --Teancum (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Free time was not my friend this week.

I updated the review above. Because of my delay, I'll give the review an extension if needed.

The remaining issues are:

• Do a final sweep for gaming jargon and proper usage of player/character.
• Some third-party sourcing for the Synopsis and Gameplay sections.
• The interview is reasonable, but a replacement for the soundtrack citation would be best. A primary source will work just fine.

Other than that, the article is in good shape. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC))

All but one of my concerns have been addressed: add some third-party sourcing to the Synopsis and Gameplay sections. Though I don't think it is any reason to fail the nomination, I really recommend addressing this to ensure that the article isn't taken to GAR in the future due to instruction creep. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC))

I'll try to get to that by Mon/Tues. --Teancum (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm passing the article.

My remaining concern is not related to the current GA criteria. Good job. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC))