Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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) 15 March 2021 [1].

Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)

edit
Nominator(s): GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an indie horror video game that became immensely popular after appearing in numerous popular Let's Play YouTube videos. It led to the launch of a very successful media franchise, which now includes several video games and books, with a film adaptation currently in development. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/Five Nights at Freddy's (video game)/archive1 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

edit

Spotchecks not done

  • What makes Cliqist a high-quality reliable source? Softpedia? Engadget? Armed Gamer? kotaku? Clickteam? Destructoid? WMPoweruser? ComicBook.com? Think Gaming? ScreenRant? Escapist? Player.One? Christian Post? International Business Times?
  • I've removed Cliqist, Armed Gamer, WMPowerUser, Player.One, Escapist, Softpedia, Screen Rant, International Business Times and Christian Post as sources. Kotaku, Engadget, Destructoid and ComicBook.com are all used as sources in current video game featured articles (see Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario Galaxy). I would also say Clickteam is an acceptable source as per the above user's reasoning. As for the Think Gaming source, I cannot find any other source with information about sale numbers for the game. The source seems okay, but I can't prove it to be a high quality source. Do I need to remove that part of the Sales section altogether? GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being used in other articles or being an interview are not in themselves sufficient rationales; see this page for some pointers on rationale. If you can't find alternative sourcing or a reason why that one should be considered high quality, then yes you may need to remove material cited to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Engadget is owned by AOL and is written by a team of 45 editors (many with quite a few years of experience- see their about page). It was listed as one of the best blogs of 2010 by Time Magazine and has won two Webby awards.
  • The Clickteam website is the official website for the company behind the game development software Scott Cawthon used to create Five Nights at Freddy's, is this not enough to show its reliability?
  • I'll remove Destructoid and Think Gaming as sources, as I can't find any indication of their reliability. GenericWikiUser1 (talk) 08:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you deciding when to include publisher?
  • FN7 is missing date
  • FN22 author is listed incorrectly
  • FN26 is missing author
  • Forbes was added to replace one of the sources listed above - what makes this a high-quality reliable source? See entry at WP:RSP
  • Betsy Brey or Brey Betsy? And this is a book so should include a publisher

Image review

edit

Media assessment is complete. I might come back later with other comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Ultimate Boss

edit
  • I am so glad you nominated this article for FA. Fnaf was a HUGE part of my childhood. I remember when I made videos of myself playing the game and uploading them to YouTube. Ah, good times. I'm getting off track. The article looks great; just some minor comments. Idk about the Toy News. Is that reliable? The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:07, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from HumanxAnthro

edit
  • The first sentence in the lead does not meet WP:VG/GENRE "Five Nights at Freddy's is an indie point-and-click survival horror video game.":
    • (1) There are more than two genres stated.
    • (2) Indie is not a genre... I'm talking to you, too, music and film industry
    • (3) The inclusion of "point-and-click" as a genre contradicts what is said in the gameplay section. "Five Nights at Freddy's is a survival horror video game with point-and-click elements." Having elements of a genre doesn't make it of that genre.
  • Can I just say I'm skeptical of any source that's written by students at a college?.... Specifically, LiveWire
  • I'm also having skepticism about IndieGameMag. It says it's published by "IGM Media," a company I can't find anywhere else; additionally, there are infrequent news pieces, it hasn't been active or announced anything (even discontinuation) since July 2020, and the layout is lame and unprofessional (there's only a short "about" section that establishes little about its editorial standards, plus a porn games section that's in the open for anyone to click on with zero barrier). Also, all of the "news pieces" are credited either to "indiegamingmag" or "Ryan Brown." Totally not self-published, amirite? HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2019, ports were released for Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.[23]" No specific release dates for these, even though they're stated in the infobox?
  • Although, why is the Steam date not in the infobox?
  • The Reception section is non-engaging to read and has three major problems
  • There is no representation from academic or scholarly literature about this game. Took me a simple Google Scholar to find tons of it.

While I haven't read the whole article in depth, the incompleteness and reception section of this article is the hammer that strikes an Oppose for me. HumanxAnthro (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

edit
  • Almost every sentence from the second paragraph of "Gameplay" begins with "the", which feels monotonous.
  • "notably" from "most notably the two hallways" is inapporpriate WP:POV and WP:EDITORIALIZING
  • "restaurant’s main animatronic" → "restaurant's main animatronic" per MOS:CURLY
  • Is it known when development concluded, or even when that first began?
  • Five reviews in "Reception" isn't nearly enough for a highly famous and popular game like this. You should aim for at least twice as many.
  • You mention FNAF "was the top-selling game on Desura for the week ending August 18, 2014", so how many copies did it sell?

Unfortunately, I must oppose, mainly because reception really needs to be expanded. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

edit

This is four weeks in and only has one support. If you are aware of any experienced reviewers who may be prepared to look at this, can I encourage you to approach them. Lacking a detailed review or two in the next four or five days, I am afraid that this is likely to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly not currently a consensus to promote. I would suggest working on it off-FAC, possibly with support from the opposers. There will be the usual two-week wait before another nomination can be made.
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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Five_Nights_at_Freddy%27s_(video_game)/archive1&oldid=1012363070"