Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Nights into Dreams.../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 promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2016 [1].

Nights into Dreams...

edit
Nominator(s): JAGUAR  23:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nights into Dreams... was at the time widely considered as one of the greatest video games of all time, as well as the de facto best Sega Saturn game (and judging from its not so competitve library, critics are inclined to agree). I worked very hard throughout November and December to bring this to GA, and I managed to achieve that before the new year. I believe that this complies per the FA criteria, and I think that it's ready to face a FAC. I made use of some print sources in this article since it is a 1996 game, so there are a few harvrefs in there. Online sources were quite hard to find, but I think it's comprehensive enough. JAGUAR  23:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, I'll start implementing that today. I wondered why it didn't appear in this VG:RS search engine, as I would have definitely used it. JAGUAR  14:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hahnchen

edit
  • Oppose - Also unconvinced by its comprehensiveness. Not all comments below are oppose worthy.
    • No Japanese reception. This is important, Japan was by far the largest market for the Saturn.
    • There's a fairly extensive "Making Of..." article in Retro Gamer, which you can email me for, while it covers similar ground to the references already used, but there may be something you missed.
    • The Hobby Consolas reference is a copyvio. Hobby Consolas itself is a valid source, if you need to link it to a version, see if you can find it at the Internet Archive.
    • Same for Mean Machines.
    • Incomplete sales data - merely one mention in a table of questionable reliability. It's also confusing as to whether Nights was the "top-selling game for the Sega Saturn" worldwide or just Japan. The source strongly suggests the latter but could be misread.
      • In Japan; the sentence originally stated it was in Japan at the end, but I've rephrased it to "In Japan, Nights into Dreams was the best-selling game for the Sega Saturn and the 21st highest-selling game during 1996" for clarity. JAGUAR  19:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unreferenced release dates for the original game, and no information on its release, such as the $10M advertising campaign in the US.[2]
    • Coming Soon has no relation to Crave Online, it is not the same as http://comingsoon.net I'm unconvinced it's a reliable source. There are better sources available such as Next Generation and GameFan.
    • "A reviewer of publication...", suggests that someone is reviewing the publication, not the game. The Game Revolution reviewer is Colin Ferris; for Mean Machines, it is Gus and Dan. Edge doesn't do bylines for its reviews, it's a collective, so just state Edge.
      • Fixed. I can't use "Gus and Dan" as I can't find their surnames, so I think it's best to collectively refer that review to its publication for now JAGUAR  16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consider your quotes. Single word quotes are frequently read as ironic, you don't even need quote marks for single words.
      • Cut down on most JAGUAR  16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • hahnchen 11:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your comments Hahnchen, I've emailed you and asked for the article, that would be great if I could get that. I've been busy in RL lately, so I should start addressing these in a day or two. I agree with you regarding the Japanese section, but my only concern is that the only Japanese reviews of the game are going to be scans, and I'll have no way of translating them. That is, if I can locate such Japanese reviews. I'm writing up a sandbox draft of the development section from the Shmuplations source at the moment. I'll go over this properly tomorrow. I might be able to sort out the development section when this FAC is still active. JAGUAR  20:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahnchen: I've come back to this review with a fresh mind, what do you think of the development section now? I've expanded it using both the Retro Gamer source you sent me and the Shmuplations interview. I'll take another look at the $10M advertising campaign tomorrow, but for now the minor stuff seem to be addressed. JAGUAR  19:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments - The reception section still isn't good enough. Some points above not yet addressed, such as the "reviewer of", some further issues below are just a result of carelessness.
    • Nicovideo is user-generated content. You've cited a wiki. Even had it been a reliable source, what does "the game offered a 'force of very beautiful' and attractive graphics" even mean? Why would you quote that?
    • "due to the game occasionally clipping and warping" - what does that mean? Is it a problem with the game failing to render certain sections because of faulty clipping, or does it refer characters "clipping" through surfaces? If you can't be exact, don't include it.
      • It's the former, the Saturn wasn't built to handle the game, so it did produce occasional graphical faults. The reviewer was right about something. I should have addressed it now. JAGUAR  21:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you know that the writer for the two Japanese Sega Saturn Magazine references are the same person as the prose implies? If there is a byline, state in it the reference, even in Japanese. Ask help from your translator regarding Japanese input.
      • This was a mistake on my part. The two magazines merely contained snippets of a review/overview of the game, so I picked out the particular praise they gave the game. I've removed "A reviewer of" as I couldn't find any reviewer's name in the articles. I spent three hours of the morning looking for those scans, and even longer taking out snippets of the only reviews they had of it. JAGUAR  21:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • What insight does this sentence offer, "A reviewer of Mean Machines Sega similarly praised the music and sound effects as "awesome" and impressive."
    • "graphically vibrant colours" - as opposed to ungraphically vibrant?
    • "whilst comparing its smooth animation 'as fluid as water'" - what about its rough animation?
    • The C&VG review is authored by Paul Davies, Ed Lomas and Tom Guise. Only Guise is given credit in the reference.
    • Check for a GameFan byline.
    • Consider moving the "awards" section into the legacy section and removing the awards subheading. They're not really awards.
    • I would consider moving the ports and sequel section to legacy. The series that the game spawned is its legacy. I'd keep Christmas Nights where it is.
      • OK, I've moved the remakes section under legacy and merged the "HD remake" subsection into the new remakes section, which is under legacy. I'm not sure about merging the Sequel section under legacy as that would create too many subsections and might look cluttered, so I've left that as it is. Let me know what you think... JAGUAR  22:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "using Silicon Graphics for graphical designs and Hewlett-Packard emulators for programming" - Silicon Graphics is a company, I'm assuming they had Silicon Graphics workstations, not that they outsourced the art. I'm assuming they used Sega Saturn emulators running on HP machines, not HP emulators.
All addressed, Hahnchen, thank you once again for the comments! To summarise, I've cut the snippets you mentioned and re-arranged some subsections. I left the "Sequels" subsection where it was as I didn't want to clutter the legacy section with too many subheaders. Please let me know if you've got anything else. JAGUAR  22:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You need to reconsider your use of quotes. "reviewer of publication" still isn't fixed. - hahnchen 20:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Hahnchen, I've got that now. I've rephrased all of the "reviewer of publication" quotes to "reviewer from", and I've also rephrased the Next Generation snippets. I've been told not to personify publications, but I like this style better. I also re-evaluated the quotes, getting rid of all single-word quotes and rephrased some others, so it's less reliant on quotes. I've never been good making use of quotes. JAGUAR  22:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further minor points.
  • What does "occasional build up" mean? Is it pop-in?
  • "added scepticism over the Saturn's ability to portray graphics", the Saturn can obviously portray graphics. Have something like, "Levi Buchanan from IGN believed the console was built... ...after observing clipping and warping errors".
  • "comparing its animation 'as fluid..." - you don't compare things as, you compare things to. You probably want "described its animation as being..." or something similar.
  • Good point, some hasty phrasing on my part. I've changed this to "
  • What does this mean, "Oshima created the character of Nights based on his impressions of travelling around Europe and western Asia"?
  • "any sound-proof studios, anonymous team members" - why anonymous?
  • "In a 2007 interview, Iizuka stated..." - move this with the other Chrismas Nights development.

Comments from EditorE

edit
  • Very weak oppose for now. The article is well-written and interesting to read, but there's some major elements about the game, mainly information and opinions in Japanese reviews and articles, not included in the article that's keeping it from FA status. However, that may be due to the fact that reviews only in Japanese print magazines are hard as hell to find or cite properly, so I'd say give the nominator a few more days to look for sources and improve it so I may or may not reconsider my final opinion. editorEهեইдအ😎 20:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do a serious search tomorrow, but from what I've found since November haven't been promising. Japanese scans from 1996 are indeed hard as hell to find, and impossible to read if you don't understand the language. But I do acknowledge that more Japanese reviews are needed for this, although I'm worried because I don't know where to start, and how to translate if I ever find them. JAGUAR  20:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hate to disappoint, but the only Japanese scans I found were, well, scans which couldn't be translated! Even then, they looked like snippets which couldn't compete with any English sources. JAGUAR  20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, actually maybe this is could be passed. I was judging the article's comprehensiveness from the comments that came before mine in this debate. I think this is can pass now if you can't find anything else, so Support editorEهեইдအ😎 15:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhain

edit

As I've come to expect from Jaguar, this is a well-written and interesting article. I've noticed a few things, and I'll try to be as nit-picky as possible:

Gameplay
  • I feel as though the Gameplay section should begin with "Nights into Dreams... is split...", instead of "The game is split...". This is a minor thing, but it makes sense to re-introduce the name of the game outside the lead.
  • What is an "Ideya"? Some clarification would be nice here.
  • "awaken" might work better than "wake up" (second paragraph), although I'm apathetic.
  • What/Who is "Nights"?
  • I find it strange that the ranking system ("between A and F") is introduced three paragraphs after "a "C" grade" is mentioned. I personally would have grouped the information together, to avoid any confusion, but this is pretty minor. Only change if you agree; I don't mind otherwise.
  • Since "A-Life" is one paragraph, I recommend removing the header (perhaps {{anchor}} instead?) and merging it with the rest of Gameplay. Just a personal preference, though.
Plot
  • I see that "Ideya" and "Nights" are clarified in this section. Perhaps it would be better to move Plot above Gameplay, to avoid this confusion.
  • I've elaborated both in the gameplay section, so this way of organisation should be fine. I'm not too keen on forcing the reader to read an extensive plot section before gameplay, but that could just be me. JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Development
  • "due to there being no other games to use for reference" is a little awkward. Perhaps something like "due to the lack of games to use as reference" would fit better.
  • It might be a good idea to clarify what Christmas Nights is, since it hasn't yet been used outside the lead. Otherwise, the information about the game could be moved to the appropriate section instead.
Ports
  • Christmas Nights still hasn't been properly introduced yet. Perhaps this is just a minor thing, since it seems to be personal preference.
  • I've elaborated it as an add-on in development, so I think that should be enough to let the new reader know what it is before they move to the Christmas Nights section. I'm trying to put myself in the position of a new reader, but I if need be I could move the "Ports" section after "Related games". JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Related games
  • "due to the their dreams"—"the" seems to be a typo.
  • "according to what hour it is" (third paragraph) also feels slightly awkward. Perhaps "according to the hour".
  • "Sonic may only go through the stage"—perhaps something like "Sonic may only play through the stage" would work better.
  • "defeat the boss - an inflatable Dr. Robotnik"—the hyphen should either be changed to a colon, a comma, or ndash.
  • There's no need to link Takashi Iizuka again, nor restate his role, since this is already established in the Development section.
  • Similarly, Iizuka only needs to be referred to by his surname in the last paragraph.
Reception
  • "while comparing its smooth animation as fluid as water" (third paragraph) is confusing to me. Perhaps this should be a quote, but I think some rewording here would certainly be beneficial.
  • "Coming Soon" should be changed to "Coming Soon Magazine" to fit with the table (or vice versa).
  • I recommend restating that Buchanan is writing for IGN; I got momentarily lost when I was reading it. I'm sure an extra word or two wouldn't hurt.
  • Same goes for Claude, of Coming Soon Magazine.
References
  • There's some inconsistencies here, but overall it's much better than what I've seen in the past.
  • Some of the websites seem to have their publishers listed (e.g. "1UP. IGN", and "Gamasutra. UBM Tech"). This is perfectly fine, but then I see other references that don't use it, like IGN (which would be Ziff Davis) and Eurogamer (Gamer Network). Is there a specific reason for this?
  • I think that's a bad habit of mine. I've moved IGN to the website parameter and added Ziff Davies as the publisher (I did the same thing for Jumping Flash!). I done the same thing with Eurogamer's refs. If there's anything I missed please let me know... JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that the websites and publishers haven't been linked. There's nothing wrong with it, but if seeking consistency, Sega should not be linked in refs 32—34, and Future plc should not be linked in the Bibliography.
  • Done and fixed all.

This is all I could see right now, and most of them are fairly minor. Once these are fixed, this article will be one step closer to reaching FA. – Rhain ☔ 11:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, Rhain! I've tried to address all of your comments, they've been very helpful. Sorry for the delay in getting to this, unfortunately my internet has been down for a few days so this was the earliest chance I could get to doing this. I've still got to find some Japanese reviews, but that's going to be an issue in itself! JAGUAR  19:53, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those changes. A few more things:
  • Since the third paragraph of the Sequel section is only one paragraph, it might be worth merging with the first paragraph. If you believe otherwise, I'm happy the way it is.
  • There's still some issues with referencing, particularly with consistency. I see that IGN is linked upon every usage, but its publisher (Ziff Davis) is not. The same goes for the other references; for example, Eurogamer could be linked in ref #7, Gamasutra and UBM Tech in ref #8, GamesRadar in ref #10, and so on. There are also a lot of publishers missing, such as Future plc in ref #10 and #16, Ziff Davis is #46, Enterbrain in ref #47. I wouldn't have an issue if all web publishers were removed and only the website names were used, but it needs to be consistent either way.
While I'm here, I might as well do an image review:
That's it for now. The article is looking good. – Rhain ☔ 00:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the latter; merging the third paragraph into the first cleans up the one-sentence-paragraph issue, and it still flows quite well as it's all discussing a potential sequel. Up to you though. As for the references: they were looking pretty good, but I went through and made some changes to whatever I could find. I'm not sure if this is a prerequisite for FA, but I think it would be a good idea to archive all of the websites (I personally use WebCite, although the Internet Archive is great). There's also a few issues with links that could be fixed; they can be seen here. Nothing major, but they should probably be looked into if this is going to be a featured article. – Rhain ☔ 23:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Rhain! I'll archive all the sources once I get my router working tomorrow (using tethered data at the moment, and I have to watch my limit otherwise it's going to be a costly bill). I linked all of the publishers and corrected some, such as moving 1UP to the website and adding Ziff Davis as the publisher etc. I hope I didn't miss anything else in that regards. Thanks for the fixes! JAGUAR  20:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rhain, sorry for leaving this late, I've been distracted lately but with a new support to this FAC, I've gained some confidence. I've shrunk the first image as you suggested, and improved its rationale. I've also changed the caption to the Christmas Nights image. I hope that's everything now, please do let me know if there's anything else you would like me to change. JAGUAR  21:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: Not a problem. I've taken another look at the article, and I approve of all your changes. I recommend archiving all online sources, especially with so many websites shutting down lately, but I won't let this hold anything up. I'm happy to support this candidacy. Well done! – Rhain ☔ 07:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JDC808

edit

I will be reviewing soon (probably tomorrow). I also have God of War (series) up at FAC if you could leave some comments there. Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 23:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to get to this yesterday but got busy and didn't have time.

Lead

  • I think it would be better to write this bit — "With the help of an exiled "Nightmaren", Nights,..." — as — "With the help of Nights, an exiled "Nightmaren",..." Someone unfamiliar with this game, like myself, wouldn't know what a "Nightmaren" is, so it would be better to introduce the character before introducing what they are.
  • Continuing in that sentence — "they begin a journey to stop Wizeman, an evil ruler, from destroying Nightopia". I would rearrange this to say "they begin a journey to stop the evil ruler Wizeman from destroying Nightopia". The latter flows better.
  • "centred" - is this article done in British English? There was no indication anywhere.
  • After Sonic the Hedgehog 2, put its year of release after it in parenthesis.

Gameplay

  • I feel like there's a lot of information here. If possible, maybe try to make it more concise.
  • I've condensed it a bit, but it's probably looking bigger now I had to merge a sub-section with gameplay. I'm always aiming for this to be comprehensive as it's the most important aspect of the FA criteria that people look out for. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis

  • "Elliot is a basketball player who enjoys a game with his friends one day." Remove "one day", we're already told that in the first sentence.
  • "Once in Nightopia, they discover and release Nights, who tells them about dreams, Wizeman and his plans, and the three begin a journey to stop Wizeman and restore peace to Nightopia." How about "Once in Nightopia, they discover and release Nights, who tells them about dreams and Wizeman and his plans; the three begin a journey to stop Wizeman and restore peace to Nightopia."

Development

  • Second paragraph, italicize "Sonic" unless you're meaning the character (if character, link it). If you mean the studio "Sonic Team", add Team.

Throughout the article, I noticed some punctuation issues. Whenever you use "however" in the middle of a sentence, a comma goes before and after; you only have it before.

Thanks for spotting this. I've added commas after throughout. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what stuck out to me so far. I'll have another look once the above is addressed. --JDC808 ♫ 19:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review JDC808! I've addressed all of your points so far. JAGUAR  20:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Release

  • Year of release after Super Mario 64.

HD version

  • "However, Christmas Nights' Sonic the Hedgehog level was removed." "Sonic the Hedgehog" needs italiczed, but because of the awkwardness it would present (two game titles back to back), reword as "However, the Sonic the Hedgehog level of Christmas Nights was removed."

Christmas Nights

  • Year of release after Daytona USA and Sonic CD.

In other media

  • Year of release after the games.

After completing the article, that's all that stuck out to me. --JDC808 ♫ 20:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again JDC808, I got everything. I admit I've never seen the years of release mentioned in prose, but I added it anyway. If there's anything else I can do, please let me know. Thanks again. JAGUAR  21:03, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there's actually a written rule, but for me, it's perspective.

All of my issues have been addressed. I Support this article's promotion. --JDC808 ♫ 21:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

@Jaguar: This will need a full check for potential plagiarism/copyvio issues (not just a spot-check) so you may wish to start seeking an independent editor familiar with FAC reviewing for that purpose. --Laser brain (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll ask somebody if they're willing to do one. JAGUAR  11:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that this check should be done after any comprehensiveness concerns are addressed. If additional sources are not located, this will have to be archived in any case. --Laser brain (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just asked for some Japanese scans. Once I receive them, I'll implement it immediately. JAGUAR  12:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good news, I've found three scans of the Japanese Sega Saturn Magazine, so I'll spend the rest of today implementing them. Once that's done, I'll request a copyvio check. JAGUAR  13:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a plagiarism/copyvio request here. JAGUAR  17:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: Copyvio/plagiarism check done, would there be anything else needed? JAGUAR  20:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but we'll need each citation checked in light of recent items that were discussed on your Talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 00:03, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: ProtoDrake has checked every citation (see below) and couldn't find copyvios. I double-checked everything myself before, but it's nice to have another reviewer formalise things. JAGUAR  20:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio Review by ProtoDrake

edit

I've run the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector (see results). While there are two large "Copyvio" alerts, they are for a user review from GameSpot, and what appears to be a fan blog. Otherwise, there don't seem to be any problems with the article: "Copyvio" alerts beyond those two urls are negligible. I don't see any reason for this article not to become an FA. I therefore Support its promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine, my guess if that both of those links should be discounted anyway. The GameSpot user review was an obvious copy and paste of this article before I edited it! Thanks for going through this, Earwig's Copyvio Detector was down when I tried to check this. JAGUAR  20:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ProtoDrake: sorry for coming back to this. Laser brain said that every citation needs to be checked to ensure that there is no plagiarism/copyvio in the article. I've done it myself, but I need an independent reviewer to check it over and formalise it. It's easy, I would just check every source to make sure that the text in the article isn't completely identical to the text in the source. It would be doing me a massive favour if this can be done because this FAC is on the verge of being let through. If you can't do it then I'll ask someone at WT:VG, but I would be so grateful if you could! JAGUAR  00:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: Of course I will, but I'm unable to check some of the links due to them being dead (such as CVG). This has nothing to do with a Copyvio review, but it needs to happen. --ProtoDrake (talk) 06:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: I can't find any overt copyvios on the live links. The unlinked print references I can't check, of course. The dead ones are another matter again. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ProtoDrake. I double-checked them myself twice and couldn't find any. It's good to have somebody else look it over. Here is the English translation for the interview with Hobby Consolas, and a couple of Japanese scans can be found on Sonic Retro. But of course, foreign languages make it void. Thanks once again for checking. JAGUAR  20:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ProtoDrake: I'm sorry to be a pain here, but as I'm unfamiliar with your method and ability to perform copyvio checks, can you give me more information about your process and results? We need something more than "I can't find any overt copyvios". We need to make sure that we check for close paraphrasing as well as copied text, plus whether the source supports what it's citing. Generally I look for a side-by-side comparison of the article text and source text, for at least some of the citations. Can you give us more details please? --Laser brain (talk) 11:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laser brain: I looked through the citations available and compared source with article for both direct lifts and unreasonable amounts of close paraphrasing. While there was inevitably some similar phrasing here and there (English is like that), I didn't find anything serious enough to hold up even an FA. If you don't have confidence in my abilities, I will strike my support from the record and another editor can be brought in. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I have full confidence that the copvyio check was sufficient, as well as I'm confident that there were no copyvios in the first place. @FAC coordinators: I think this is the oldest nomination now, I'm keen to see anybody else's take on this. JAGUAR  20:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Laser brain

edit

I started reading through this tonight to see if it might be ready for promotion, and unfortunately I am readily finding issues with the writing. This will need a thorough prose review from someone with an eye on criterion 1a before it could be considered for promotion. Examples:

  • "Gameplay is centred around Nights flying through Claris and Elliot's dreams" Later you indicate that their dreams are separate, so this is incorrect punctuation.
  • I think the reader would know that everybody's dreams are separate and never connected in any way. How would Gameplay is centred around Nights flying through the dreams of Claris and Elliot to gather enough energy to defeat Wizeman and save Nightopia sound? JAGUAR  12:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraneous "in order to" present at least twice in just the first para.
  • In British English, "in order" is usually omitted. I don't know if it's a personal preference or if times are changing but I use "in order to" most of the time. I see what you mean, so I dropped both. JAGUAR  11:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "imposes time limits in every level" Impose on, not in.
  • "Naka began the project with the central idea being flight" Unclear writing—what does this mean?
  • Misplaced modifiers ("Oshima also designed", "was exclusively included with some retail copies sold")
  • Very good catch! Rephrased. Also fixed a misspelling in Ohshima's name. I removed "exclusively" because the controller could be bought separately, although this was the only game it was bundled with. JAGUAR  11:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been included ... as being the best Sega Saturn game of all time" Grammar
  • Changed to It has been included on multiple lists as being the best Sega Saturn game of all time, as well as among the best games ever made.

I didn't read past the lead. I'm hoping this one suffers from a bit of lead neglect syndrome and the rest is smoother. But, I think it needs further work. --Laser brain (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll get to this in the morning. JAGUAR  01:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll read further when I have time today, recusing my coordinator role on this one. If I don't find major issues, I'll try to just fix them. Style guides generally recommend that "I circled the block in order to find a parking spot" is synonymous with "I circled the block to find a parking spot". It's not that "in order to" is incorrect, but the old adage is not to use words you don't need. --Laser brain (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Laser brain: I should have everything addressed, except the first point regarding the dreams, as I think that the reader should already know that all dreams are separate. To me, the sentence "centred around Nights flying through Claris and Elliot's dreams" sounds right as it refers to two different people and dreams, not dreams that are shared with two people. I left a suggestion above but I'm not sure about implementing it. In addition, I went through the rest of the article with a fine-pick and copyedited some of the prose. Thanks again! JAGUAR  12:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain: just a reminder. Were you going to leave any another comments? I understand that the involvement here might nullify your role as a coordinator, so if not, should I ping the other coordinator(s)? JAGUAR  19:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The other coord has watchlisted, and will return in due course to look over how things stand. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: just checking in, more comments were left along with two new supports. JAGUAR  15:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameo appearance by Wehwalt

edit
Comment This comment criticizing the sourcing here was left in the FAC for Hawaii Sesquicentennial half dollar. Just passing it on. That's the limit of what I'm doing here (exits stage left)--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I don't know what he means by "incorrect". The sources have been checked over by myself three times and an independent review by another user has already been made. Maybe he meant formatting? I don't know. I'll check it out in the morning. JAGUAR  01:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora I see you've now dropped ref 66 (the one from 2007 that pointed to the Sega website's home page), but ref 41 is still wrong. There is no blurb by Andy Robinson re: "Nights Wii - First details". You need to archive all web links: your article is only as good as its sources, and when link-rot kicks in a few years from now this whole article will be worthless. Re-check your other sources, too, as I'm sure I found one more mistake. Singora (talk) 11:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Singora. I was on my phone last night and I removed ref 66 as I thought it wasn't needed; ref 68 and 69 is sufficient for the remaster. I was going to ping you this morning as I wasn't sure. I've archived ref 41, and the first paragraph mentions that the sequel had featured reviews from other publications. I'm going to archive all the online sources now. JAGUAR  15:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Singora. Cool. Check ref #41 (Andy Robinson re: "Nights Wii - First details"). I'm sure it's wrong. When you've archived all web links I'll re-read your article and most likely support. Note that archive.org will sometimes throw up a message saying the link couldn't be archived due to "robots.txt". If this happens, try using webcitation.org. If it's of any interest (and I'm sure it isn't) I once had an Atari 400 and spent disgusting amounts of time playing Pacman, Centipede and Star Raiders. Singora (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Singora: I've archived every online source, with the sole exception of the scans from Internet Archive, as it can never be archived. I think it's safe to say that the Internet Archive will never fall! Thanks for letting me know about webcitation, the only sources that had robot.txt in it was 1UP, but now they're safe. Regarding ref 41, I've rephrased it so it now mentions that its sequel was first previewed on a Spanish publication, although it received mentions from two magazines before it. That's what the first paragraph of the source was saying, and hopefully I've cleared that up? I don't play as many video games as I used to (shock), but I grew up with this game! Thanks again for your comments. JAGUAR  18:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'm not an expert on his game nor have I ever played it but the article looks to be comprehensive, neutral and well-written. All sources are archived so no dead links. Z105space (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More from Singora Singora (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've archived things properly. I see now you and I were talking at cross purposes re: ref #41. Compare:

In other words the original link has "rotted" to the extent that it now points to a different domain. As such, you should remove the original from the source. Other than this, Support on sourcing and structure. I don't have time to re-read and check the prose as I've promised to check some PDFs for another article (ie, a guy called Wehewalt).

Thank you for that support! I've removed the original URL, well spotted. 15:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
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/Nights_into_Dreams.../archive1&oldid=1136458177"