Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crash Bandicoot (video game)/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 October 2021 [1].

Crash Bandicoot (video game)

Nominator(s): Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the highest selling video games for the PlayStation, a rare Western game to see commercial success in Japan, the title that put Naughty Dog on the map, and the beginning of an eponymous series that has made the titular Tasmanian critter a household name. This article was promoted to GA a decade ago, and after spending the last few years getting back in the groove following a lengthy hiatus, I finally decided to man up and make my first FA candidate out of it. I dedicated the good chunk of January sprucing the page up and trying to meet those formidable standards, wringing any and all sources I could find. The subsequent peer review proved reassuring, but seeing how this is my very first FAC, further input through this process is naturally welcome. Hoping for the best, Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose on images~~. This article has a lot of non-free images, which presents a concern wrt WP:NFCC#3. Additionally, the fair-use rationales are generally minimal, meaning that there is little in the way of justification for use of all of these. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: The images in the 'Marketing and release' section seemed the least necessary, so went ahead and removed those. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good first step, but the FURs should still be strengthened. (Also, as a secondary issue, images generally should not use fixed px size). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Spruced up the non-free rationales for the cover and character development art the best that I could, and removed all size parameters. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 02:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements still needed. For example, the lead image is missing information about who is believed to be the copyright holder, and the purpose of use statement remains minimal. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Taken care of. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:28, 2 October 021 (UTC)

Okay. I've struck my oppose but would still suggest additional work on strengthening the purpose of use fields in particular, as they are key to justifying the need for non-free materials. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I am assuming that your striking your oppose does not constitute a pass; is that correct? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correct - IMO the FURs would benefit from additional elaboration. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Is a gameplay video really necessary? A screenshot is, I accept, typical, but is a non-free video needed in this case?

The video was a recommendation from the peer review on the basis that a short section of the gameplay in action would better serve the purpose of illustrating the mechanics and presentation. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "Go West" source? I think it's a student paper (not a piece of peer-reviewed research), and so I'm not sure it would constitute a reliable source -- unless I'm missing something?

I would think that any document out of a major university would be considered reliable, and the paper itself is quite reasonably sourced in itself as the endnotes section would indicate. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look through the Google Scholar results? There are some potentially interesting hits. There were some interesting tidbits in this and this, for instance -- but maybe those details are already in the article!

The first link doesn't appear to have anything relating to the game, and whatever reference there is in the second seems to be in an unavailable page. Anyway, I've already scoured through Google Books, and just about all the relevant resources I can see have been incorporated. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's useful -- I'm afraid I can't commit to a full review, but I'm pleased to see this here. I spent a lot of time on these games as a kid (and was then shocked by the difficulty of the remakes...). Josh Milburn (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ProtoDrake

Support: Looking through this article, I can't find anything particularly major. While I wouldn't put citations in the middle of sentences without commas personally, the rest of the article seems all right. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coorditator comment

More than three weeks in and this nomination has only attracted a single general support. Unless further indications of a consensus to promote appear within the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be gathering any momentum, so I am archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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.

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