Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Park: The Fractured but Whole/archive2

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 2 July 2019 [1].

South Park: The Fractured but Whole

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the only times FAC will stand for F******g Awesome Content dude, we have the South Park: The Fractured but Whole article. Comprehensive, well sourced, and open for review. Thanks. Pinging previous reviewers Laser_brain, TheJoebro64, Lee Vilenski, Aoba47, Zwerg Nase Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - read through it and the prose was good enough for me to just slip into "read-only/consumer" mode without thinking about it, which is a Good Sign. I can't exclude some minor issues but overall I think this passes on comprehnensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sound file exceeds the maximum length recommendation set out by WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meant to do this earlier (as I reviewed at the previous FAC), but I have glanced over the article again and find nothing to nitpick. JOE BRO 64 19:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/support from Aoba47

I noticed a few instances where the references are not in numeric order (primarily in the “Gameplay” section). I would read through the article to catch these parts .

This is the only point that I have noticed and since it is rather minor, I still support this from my review during the previous FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback Aoba47, I went through and rectified these reference issues anyway, thank you for your support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Hopefully, things go well for the FAC this time around. Congrats on all of the work you put into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Laser brain

@Darkwarriorblake: Sorry I'm so late in getting around to this. Can you recap for me what you did to address my comments from the previous nomination? --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Laser_brain, I went through and tried to find the quoted material and either added quotes or just outright removed stuff that wasn't essential.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started reading through "Critical response" and got as far as "or over-focused on fart and poop jokes", which the cited source doesn't seem to support. It's not a good sign. --Laser brain (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's in the Slant reference immediately following, it's a left over reference from removed content.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I hadn't got to this sooner -- --Andy, how is the article looking to you now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on 1a, unfortunately. I just did a further read-through going past the Critical response section. I honestly think it's a solid B-class or GA standard, but I don't think the writing overall is at the Featured standard. The paragraphs read as if they are paraphrased side-by-side while looking at the source, resulting in stilted prose that doesn't flow well. Some examples of writing issues:

Why are we continually use "they" and "their" to refer to New Kid? I wondered until I scrolled down quite a way to find out that "New Kid" can be customized. In that case, we should be using better writing to avoid the pronound issues (i.e. "The New Kid can use farts to manipulate time" rather than the awkward "The New Kid can manipulate time with their farts")
I find the description of gameplay to be overly colloquial and without sufficient explanation for the unfamiliar (ex. "Ultimate attacks can only be used after filling the Ultimate bar")
Starting in the Development section, the narrative strikes me as the main problem area for the paraphrasing issue I described above.
"At the beginning of development, they met with the team at Ubisoft to determine the game's storyline and elements of The Stick of Truth they were unhappy about" At this time they determined what they were unhappy about?
Do we need details like teleconference meetings? Why are they notable?
"Schroeder was responsible for declining Stone and Parker's requests" What kinds of requests, and why did they need to be declined? Again, it seems this was worked into an interview or article and was paraphrased into the article without understanding how it fits into the narrative or why it's important.

Additionally, as I was reading, I was thinking that "fart" isn't an encyclopedic term. I realize that it would be difficult to write about this topic without using the term (other than in quotations) but it strikes me as extremely colloquial and makes the article read like more of a game guide than an encyclopedia. I think the larger problem is that sources were paraphrased into the form of the article without enough attention to overall cohesiveness. I think entire sections will need to be revised from an understanding of the sources. --Laser brain (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski -I supported before, then was achived due to the reception section, which I'll admit isn't somewhere I'm particurlarly familiar with. Looks like effort into fixing this issue has been seen, and I'm happy with the overall article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment: The sample's bitrate is too high, per WP:SAMPLE. What's the value of the "The Coon" picture? It looks very much like a "decorative" non-free image, and thus contrary to NFCC#8. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reduced the file size of this 14 second sample. The image is there because if the reader is unfamiliar with South Park, the concept of how Cartman and his sentient hand puppet can co-exist might not be easy to understand, the image is to help demonstrate exactly what capacity they operate in. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm not buying it. It's the character on the game's cover in the outfit on the cover, with (as the text notes) "a crude hand puppet drawn on [his] left hand". I can't really see why an image is necessary to understand this; I skim read the plot section, and I have pretty clear idea of what's going on. At no point did I think "I wish I could see a picture of this handpuppet so I understood what it looked like". Do you have any sources that suggest that an image is really needed here? Josh Milburn (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You skim-read it AFTER seeing the image, but whatever, no one else saw an issue with it and I thought it was useful, not decorative, but it's gone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks; no further comments right now. Good luck with the nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

I think the concerns and recommendations articulated by Laser brain are sufficient to archive this so improvements can be made outside the FAC process prior to another try. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2019 (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. Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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