Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grim Fandango

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 00:47, 26 March 2008.

---

Grim Fandango

Self-nomination Myself and other editors have worked to polish this article from an already decent start; having had both GA review and several eyes from the VG project to provide additional suggests have helped to get it to this state. MASEM 13:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
  • PC Gamer magazine needs to be italicised in the current ref 5
  • http://www.grimfandango.net/index.php?page=site looks like a fan site. It even calls itself that on the about page.
  • http://gamestudies.org/0701 who is behind this journal?

All other links check out fine on the link check tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed 1 and 3. The grimfandgo.net site is admittedly a fan site, but it has been noted as one of the better GF fansites, and only one reference off that site is used here (it's referenced as from the Escapist article as a fansite as well, but that's a different example). If this is a problem, it can be removed I think without affecting the article. --MASEM 16:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I think the information that it's sourcing is important "It was the first LucasArts adventure since Labyrinth not to use the SCUMM engine, instead using the Sith engine, pioneered by Jedi Knight: Dark Forces II, as the basis of the new GrimE engine." (curent ref 9) (it is used elsewhere to reference itself as a fan site also at current ref 25, but that is okay, since it's sourcing that it is a fan site (weird logic, but it works)). Any chance one of the other sites has that information? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I found this PDF by the people that created Lau that includes the fact that Bret M. (LucasArts) was going to use it to replace the SCUMM engine. This one confirms that GF was based on the Jedi Knight engine, so, I think that covers it? --MASEM 02:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

further FYI, I felt both references found are excellent additions so have included them on top of that existing statement. --MASEM 05:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: concerns regarding Image:Manuel_Calavera_in_"Grim_Fandango"_(1998).jpg‎:
  • Image is not low resolution (see WP:NFCC#3B), which may be moot given next bullet.
  • Image's stated purpose is "To illustrate the game's visual aspects and identify its protagonist". Protagonist is visible in three other images, one of which is superior quality (NFCC#3A states "As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article"). Further, "visual aspects" are visible in both Image:Grim-fandango-cast.jpg and Image:Office-final.jpg. Given the presence of other images, how does "Manuel Calavera" image contribute significantly above the contributions already made (required by NFCC#8)? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Image has been removed, as you are correct it is redundant given the box cover and cast picture, and other elements demonstrate the style well enough. --MASEM 18:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Stricken. Thanks. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: It strikes me that a sizeable bulk of the story section doesn't reference any of its information. Would at the least some form of quoting relevant lines from the game, possibly in conjunction with {{cite video game}}, be suitable? -- Sabre (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are there any particular parts of the plot you feel need to be quoted from the game? I can add them where it's needed. --MASEM 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Its more of a general thing rather than a specific "this particular bit needs citing" issue, but I personally would go for quoting for the really important parts of the section. -- Sabre (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Ok I've added a handful of quotes to support some of the key elements of the plot. --MASEM 03:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Support: that's sufficient enough for me, I personally can't see anything wrong elswhere. -- Sabre (talk) 10:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Neutral:

• "examine, collect, and use objects correctly to solve the various puzzles with the game, in order to progress." Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't it be in the game as opposed to with?
• Per WP: LEAD the lead needs to be a comprehensive summary of the article, yet there's no mention of Reception.
• I asked this in at the wikiproject talk page, but got no response. Is there any chance of the gameplay section being expanded? I haven't played the game, so I don't know if expansion is really necessary, it's just that the section is quite short compared to others.
  • It is an adventure game, which I have added a wikilink to, but to describe how to play one is redundant with that link.
    • Fair enough. That's all I needed to know.
• "The player controls Manuel "Manny" Calavera as he seeks the fate of Mercedes "Meche" Colomar in the Underworld." Strange wording here. Is he actually looking for her, or is he looking for her fate, whatever that is supposed to mean.
• "The user manual observes that everyone who smokes in the game is dead: "Think about it."[2]" This is bordering on trivia. Think about it ;).
• Story is unnecessarily wordy: "However, Manny is able to get the upper hand and defeat Domino." This can really be summed into "Manny defeats Domino". In general, I'd like to see the story cut down, although, looking at consensus, this seems to be a stylistic preference. Besides this general preference, the redundancies should be cut out.
  • Ok, I've tried to cut down and remove redundancies, I don't think I can cut more without losing absolutely key elements of the plot.

*"and is considered to be one of the first applications of the language in gaming applications;" Any chance of a source here?

• • It's the same source of the following sub-sentence, but I added the link to be explicit
• When a co-author is used in the sources, their names are presented as *forename**surname*, while the primary author uses the reverse order. Is there any chance that this could be changed?
• I'm no expert in grammar, but in "character alone was comprised of 250 polygons.", isn't was and of redundant here?
• Again with the grammar: "head to move separate from his body". Shouldn't this be separately?
• "the 3D engine also allowed for choreography". I'd reword this—"allowed for" sounds awkward.
• "full-motion video cutscenes were incorporate to advance the plot". Incorporated?
• "using the same in-game look for the characters and backgrounds". I'd replace look with style or something else here.
• Cutting out some redundant alsos would be good.
  • Done.
• "Staying true to its film noir style storyline". Probably needs rewording as the phrasing here seems informal.
• "Staying true to its film noir style storyline, many of the game's locales visually evoke a feeling of a stylized post-war America, with its roadside diners, shady bars, hot rods and neon signs." This could do with a source, because it seems like OR withoout it. Cut out visually. Also strange as the sentence is kind of speaking for everybody who played the game. This won't have evoked that impression for everyone.
• "Grim Fandango successfully mixed all these elements, with GameSpot noting the "beautiful art direction" and calling the visual design "consistently great"." I'm not sure if this should be in the Development section.
• "inspired by the likes of Duke Ellington and Benny Goodman as well as film composers Max Steiner and Adolph Deutsch." Again, this needs a source.
  • Source already include, dup ref.
• "enjoyed a limited release as a stand-alone soundtrack album". Any elaboration possible here?
  • I've changed the wording a bit as that's a bit flowery. There's not much more to say except that it was released; there's no indication of sales or the like for it.
• "the game was to be shipped in the first half of 1998 but slipped". Informal phrasing again—why not use delayed.
• Reception is just basic and needs to be expanded. The negative comments amount to Gamespot having trouble using the interface. There must be more. C&VG gave it 7/10. At the moment the section seems like a collation of quotes. No mention of music? It could do woth at least two more paragraphs. The neutrality is also disputed here.
  • Here is the CVG review that gives it a 7. Ok, it complains about loading times, which can be added, but... I see nothing in the text of the review that indicates that its a bad review, it even ends "One of the games of 1998." I'll put the comment about load times in, but I question where that actual review number is from.
    • Look at other reviews for negative points. Admittedly, it was a very well-received game, but as long as it hasn't got 100 percent, there must be complaints somewhere.
      • Ok, I've added a few more of the nitpicks that reviewers had with the game.
• "The game has since gone on to be considered one of the best video games of all time." This doesn't seem to be supported by the proceeding text, with only Gamespot adding the label. I mean, this label is hardly compatible with "7th Most Underrated Game of All Time as of 2003"
• The "Awards" section could do with some quotes and more cohesion.
  • Ok, to be honest, I've never seen quotes used with awards (generally since this further pushes the POV balance), and in terms of cohension, it's pretty much in chrono order. I am not sure what else you are looking for here.
    • Okay, don't feel obligated to add quotes, I just feel that it helps the prose flow a bit.
      • Added a few to help here.

*"Despite its high quality, good reviews and numerous awards, Grim Fandango" This is unnecessary. Such things make this sound like an advertisement some times.

• It's possible that extraneous detail has been added to Sales to seem that it's bigger than it is. After all, there is only one piece of actual data there.
  • There's one data point, yes, but again, the data point is what makes GF the end of the era, so to speak, with the other supporting sources.
    • It could just really do with some more data, especially something from other countries to give more comprehensive coverage.
      • I found one other datapoint, but the usual sources for sales data don't have this information this far back, and LucasArts refused to releasd numbers back then. As a point on the whole section, it may be more than just "sales" but it's not "Sales and Aftermath", but maybe there's another term that describes this.
• There doesn't seem to be need for the Gamrankings EL if it's used as a source.
• I'd make a choice of either Mobygames or IMDB, as one is redundant in regards to the other.

I hope this helps. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 09:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• • I've commented on a couple specific points, but have tried to take care of every other non-commented on-point. --MASEM 14:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Striked comments. Tell me if you think I've missed some. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed all the comments above at this point. --MASEM 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Great job on the amendments so far. Masem, I hope you don't mind if I check over this article tomorrow morning. It's getting quite late where I'm from, and I at least one to check over the article whilst partially awake: ). I've striked the straight-forward things, will look over Reception and Story tomorrow. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just let me know if you think it needs anything else. --MASEM 22:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Okay, I've declared myself neutral after another look and done a bit of copyediting but there are still some issues:
• Try to change the passive voice to the active
• Cut out the colloquialisms and informal language. For example, "the nail in the coffin" should definitely be taken out, unless you can attribute it as a quote.
• For the Reception, what really is the relevance of these fan sites? The whole section could be arranged differently as opposed to positive paragraph and negative paragraph, but this may amount to stylistic preference.
• "Top video game of all time" means the same as the previous version, only that the prose is worse this time. I changed it back. Try to find more sources to support this claim
• In general, the prose could probably do with more fine-tuning.

I hope this helps. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 10:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• • (I moved this to above Casliber's comment to avoid confusion). Ok, on specific points: I've changed how I'm describing the "greatest game" aspect to being "included in publishers' top game lists" (which is absolutely true); I've moved the fan community to the last section to avoid cluttering that one section in reception. I've tried to de-passive-y and clean up the language, I'm going to ask for a VG project member to help to a second check on that. --MASEM 14:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support nicely polished since GAN (which I reviewed) - comprehensive and good use of images and commentary to supplement plot. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support per my first GAN review and subsequent copyedit. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments: This is a real good article. I really wanted to play the game after reading it. I noticed a few minor issues that I would like addressed before supporting.

• I noticed there aren't any citations in the lead paragraphs. I realize the statements were all sourced in the rest of the article, so this is not a big deal at all.
• In the "Story" section, there was a sentence that seemed a bit out of place: "Manny steals a client from his co-worker Domino Hurley (Patrick Dollaghan)." Is this client Mercedes Colomar? It's kinda of implied by the proceeding sentence, but the flow seems off to me as it is now.
• The voice actors in parenthesis kind of break the flow also. Would it be possible to move the voice actor content to the "Development" section?

Other than those three things, I think this is a great article. It's well-written, properly sourced and a great read. I'll check back here later. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 00:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

• For the third point, would it only make sense to bring in the non-red-linked characters into the dev section, and then possibly consider a link to IMDB for the rest of the cast as an EL? Mind you, there's no information that I can find why certain actors were selected outside of the language thing, but I can still say "the voice cast included Blah blah for This Character, etc." --MASEM 00:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think that's fine. The development section is already very comprehensive, it doesn't need that much extra info. Maybe add it to the paragraph with the music info to make the whole paragraph about the audio.
    One other issue that came to mind, though I think it's already been brought up, the "Reception" section has a lot of direct quotes. Would you mind if I massaged the text some? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC))
    • Go for it. --MASEM 14:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I've moved the VAs to the dev section and done as suggested, one para dedicated to the audio side. --MASEM 15:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
• Support: All of my major issues have been addressed. The article is well-written, properly sourced, and comprehensive. A very good article in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC))

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