Wikipedia:Featured article review/Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed 18:39, 7 March 2008.

Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, User:Teggles, User:A Man In Black, User:Jonny2x4 and User:RockMFR. --Peter Andersen (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there people.

I've placed this article for FAR as I don't personally believe it meets FAC standards, especially for comprehensiveness. Much detail of the game has been left out. Voice casting is not present and although linking to another article on characters is present, a summary of key characters isn't there, budget has not been included. Criticism of the game has not been levied in any great detail and its impact on the history of the Playstation has not been commented on.

I don't believe that this article offers a comprehensive view of the topic and request that others have a look and forward their opinions. Thanks Mouse Nightshirt | talk 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Or whatever the proper bold word is. The only problem I see is that the Reception section lists only the ratings, and does not discuss the specific criticism. This is easily solved and does not warrant delisting. I disagree with User:Mouse Nightshirt on the characters and voice acting, because of size issues. The character list is a proper way to present that information. Budget is almost impossible to find sources for, and describing the impact on the history of the PlayStation is also quite difficult to do. What evidence of such impact do you have? User:Krator (t c) 12:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no proper bold word. In this section, we discuss possible improvements without declaring keep or remove, per the instructions at the top of the page. Pagra shtak 17:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree about the characters. The plot is already long for this article and we don't need to add too much character detail when there is a separate article for that. The reception section does need work, as Krator describes. I would also like to know specifically what impact the nominator wants added—without an example, this last point isn't actionable. Pagra shtak 17:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any information on the budget beyond what is already given. --- RockMFR 18:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After all, these problems need to be fixed up before it becomes a FARC. This article is indeed lacking in some places and some of it might just be overly long with unneeded details per Pagrashtak's comments and also in my opinion. Any other suggestions in improving it? Greg Jones II 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been disappointed with this article for a long time. I don't believe it meets featured article standards, even though I wrote and nominated it. I will attempt to fix these problems, but that's not a guarantee. As others have mentioned, you haven't exactly been specific. Reception is a massive problem, and is what I will focus on, but what impact do you want me to mention? I considered creating a section like this a while ago, but there was nothing to fill it with. --Teggles (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Famitsu score for MGS? Rudie M. (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what other criticism, besides Gamespot, has there been? Rudie M. (talk) 14:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the names in backets in the Cast section for? Buc (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are the pseudonyms the actors used. --Mika1h (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep—it still looks in decent shape. If Teggles can tweak up the reception section a bit and expand on the reception section, then I don't see why it can't be kept. — Deckill er 05:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, per 1b. Unfortunately, I agree with the assessment that there seems to be significant material missing, especially for a game of this importance. The reception section is little more than an overview of ratings. Some research needs to be done into serious articles written criticizing the game. Additionally, there is little information on the game's impact on its console and on other games. --Laser brain (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - a FA should discuss not only the topic itself but also the impact and importance of the topic on its field. Game review scores are worthwhile for a new game, but a game 10 years old needs to have its influence analyzed more. - Chardish (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing: The reception section, identified as the main problem here, has not seen any work in the two months since Teggles last commented, admitting it needed work. Also (although I'm not sure what video game editors have decided is appropriate for plot summaries) the Story section seems far too long and over-detailed. Given no recent work, removing per above. Marskell (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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