Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars/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 not promoted by Laser brain 23:05, 30 January 2011 [1].

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars

edit

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ » 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Capcom's "legendary" Vs. fighting video game series known for the Marvel vs. Capcom and Capcom vs. SNK installments went on hiatus for nearly eight years. With the arrival of Street Fighter IV, came the revival of the fighting genre and the next Vs. installment. Since Capcom's Seth Killian went all over the place promoting this game, my sources are diverse. I think this article meets criteria, etc. « ₣M₣ » 23:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and it showed up nothing in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the subject of plagiarism, GR took that from us. I recently copyedited the article, and rewrote that section of the lead; the version displayed on GR is my revision. And, having never seen that GR page before now, I think I can safely say that I didn't steal from it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tend to agree, but GR should be attributing the fact that the stole it from us - we do require attribution. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's true, but it has no bearing on the nomination at hand; I can't help it that another site copied my revision without attribution. I didn't steal it from them, obviously, so I can't see why the issue should be a sticking point. If you need more examples of their trend to be convinced, see this (Super Mario Galaxy 2), this (Halo: Reach), or this (Kirby's Epic Yarn). I find it more-or-less impossible that all of these articles plagiarized such an unknown site as Game Revolution. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry if you got the impression that I was insisting that the issue be resolved before I'd support, it's not needed for support. However, given the recent issues of some (okay, mostly by one person) FAs having plagarism issues, we've begun doing some checks, and running the FACs through the various automated tools is one of those steps. I was merely pointing out to other reviewers that I had done so, and that - although there was one result that could be read as indicating plagarism - it shouldn't be read as necessarily indicating such absolutely. A much bigger concern would be all those links that need to be shown as reliable sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh, okay; no problem. I don't really participate in the FAC community, so I didn't know that plagiarism had become such a big issue here. And when you didn't cross out your note, I assumed that you considered it unresolved. Anyway, FMF is handling the sources; I'm just along for the ride as a copyeditor, and am handling objections related to the prose. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not take sourcing lightly, and I really wish I could replace most of these. The way Capcom went about promoting the game, leaving some of these out may compromise the article's comprehensiveness. I had no other choice but to use good judgment and do some background work. The latter included contacting Seth Killian myself. I really did think at one point, "I'm going to get an earful from Lady Ealdgyth." So, I will attempt to break them down.
These sources are exclusive interviews and chances are they cannot be replaced:
Andriasang is from IGN's Anoop Gantayat for news exclusive to the Japanese region.
Others
Well, on the above - just because it's an interview doesn't make it reliable. The same rules apply on who published the information whether its an interview or a regular article. Who is Brian Crecente and why is he reliable? Nothing else here is showing me that they are even close to reliable, much less rising to the "High quality" level. No, I'm not expecting academic publications, but I do expect a bit higher standard of website for FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed [4], [5], and [6]. This is replaced with an Impress Group website[7] (their about page). Brian Crecente from Kotaku is an established writer who've appeared on Fox News and is a video game writer for the Rocky Mountain News[8]. Destructoid is ranked 4 among the top gaming blogs by CNET and nominated twice for the Webby Award along with these sites [9], [10]. GamesRadar is published by Future plc. I've mentioned ASCII Media Works above. The company is a member of Kadokawa Group Holdings and is thus affiliated with Kadokawa Shoten, a well-known Japanese publisher. Kadokawa's press release discusses their expertise here. Lastly, I've replaced siliconera with G4.« ₣M₣ » 18:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the Andriasang.com website.
I would categorize it as a reliable source. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I've struck what's been resolved, and the rest I'm leaving out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

After copy editing the article, there were a few issues that stood out to me.

  • Excess game guide info: Some content I think does little to further the reader's understanding of the game.
    • The third paragraph of "Gameplay" goes into a lot of detail about the universal techniques. Unless someone is going to play the game, I think the last sentence is excess and can be summarized into something more simple of generalized.
    • I think the two tables of characters are unneeded. Listing a few of the more notable series as well as the notable characters from each company is enough in my mind.
  • Flow: The article talks about the game as if it is a separate topic from the Japanese version. While this makes sense in some areas, I think it confuses the reader in others.
    • The "Gameplay" section makes no mention of the control scheme for the arcade version, but list all the options for the Wii versions. A sentence at the start of the second paragraph would be good.
    • The "Reception" section has a "Pre-release" and "Release" subsections, but the bulk of it refers to Cross Generation after its release. I would imagine that "pre-release" content would deal with reception prior to any release of the game. I suggest integrating the two subsections into a regular "Reception" section.

I'll do a full review of sources and everything else later. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Probably, these mechanics are important. I went ahead and cut down use of some terminology, but left those that are the most notable.
I've combined reception and added the arcade controls.
So you do not think there's enough weight in the article to keep a list? « ₣M₣ » 15:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I know not every editor agrees with this, but I don't think such character lists further the reader's understanding. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Instead of covering individual characters, I went with franchises. Hows that? « ₣M₣ » 18:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's much better now. Two more points:
  • Why is the Famitsu score omitted from the review table?
  • I'm not familiar with VideoGamer.com. What makes them reliable?
The article looks very good and I'll support once the above list is addressed. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, I'll go ahead and remove the list. That's the only score for CGoH and since its never abbreviated in the article (I don't think anyone other than fans abbreviate it), I chose to leave it in prose. VideoGamer.com is cited by IGN ([27][28]), 1Up.com [29], GameSpot [30], G4TV [31]. There's this about Virgin Media, if that helps. « ₣M₣ » 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Support: Sounds fine then. All my concerns were either addressed when I did copy edits or by you and other editors. I think the articles meets the FA criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 3 external redirects (see the tool in the upper right of this page- 1up, gamezone, and metacritic); fix those if you wish. --PresN 18:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - well-written and well-organized in compliance with WP:WIAFA. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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/Tatsunoko_vs._Capcom:_Ultimate_All-Stars/archive1&oldid=1138472639"