Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shadow of the Colossus/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 4:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC) [1].

Shadow of the Colossus edit

Notified: Ryu Kaze, WikiProject Tokusatsu, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Japan diff for talk page notification

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm raised concerns about WP:RS on the talk page several months ago and there has been no effort to address the problems. (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Just gonna copy the list from talkpage here for convenience:
Content copied from Talk:Shadow of the Colossus
WP:URFA/2020

A number of the sources used in this discussion are either dubious, or listed as marginal or unreliable at WP:VG/RS. If these sources are not replaced with high-quality RS, this article may undergo a featured article review. List is below.

Dubious

  • TrustedReviews
  • Press Start Online
  • The Gaming Intelligence Agency
  • Insert Credit (no consensus)
  • Cane and Rinse
  • Zone of the Gamers
  • GameChew
  • Find Articles
  • ControllerFreaks
  • Kikizo (no consensus)
  • Thunderbolt (no consensus)
  • Destructoid (situational, is Chad Concelmo a reliable author?)
  • Kotaku circe 2007 and 2009 (post-2010 is listed as okay, but two are from before then)
  • HeyUGuys

Sources that are listed as unreliable at VGRS and need replaced

  • Neoseeker
  • Nintendo Everything

Hog Farm Bacon 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't yet looked at every single one yet, but I agree with Czar that Kotaku could be extended some leniency if it was just them; also Chad Concelmo probably qualifies as a reliable author, right? Not a nobody, he's even gone on to be PR Director for Nintendo of America. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 09:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The The Gaming Intelligence Agency and Cane and Rinse sources are an interviews with the game's director, so does that mean we can use it? Or is unreliable enough that they could lie about quotes, etc? Also Insert Credit sources were written by established author Tim Rogers (journalist) and the Find Articles seems to be an website access site for accessing an Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine copy (though I cannot access it). So far I have removed and replaced the two unreliable sources and most of the dubious sources (excluding those I mentioned in the rest of my comment, in addition to Destructoid and Kotaku).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re-listing of ones that may need replacing

So after seeing that the previous listing included stuff that's probably fine like the old Kotaku ones and some interviews, I'll go ahead and look through again to try to get a better list

  • Zone of the Gamers
  • GameChew

So it looks like most of the dubious sources have been cleaned out. If we can get somebody to look through the prose and some video game folks to make sure that this is good from a comprehensiveness perspective, this ought to be saveable. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - still at the point of my comment on June 27. Those two sources still need addressed and it needs a prose review. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hog Farm: I have removed/replaced the two sources (Zone of the Gamers and GameChew) you mentioned.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • David Fuchs - Would you be willing to give this a look-over at some point? I would, but I've been pretty busy at work and don't really have the time or energy right now. The sourcing looks to have been greatly improved since the FAR opened, so hopefully this one can be saved. Hog Farm Talk 04:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the article at present:

  • There's some weird choices in what to cite in the lead, and more or less feels like it was cited at random (e.g. why is the fact that the game was created by the people who made Ico WP:LEADCITE worthy, but not that it's a spiritual successor?)
  • A few bits n' bobs don't appear to be cited (at the ends of paragraphs, etc.)
  • The synopsis section scans as excessively detailed to my eyes (roughly 1400 words) and repeats itself at points. I'm not sure the "connections to Ico" bit really belongs as its own subsection versus just a quick line or two.
  • More stylistic than directly relating to FA criteria, but the organization of the end of the development section feels a bit scattershot, talking about later remakes before we've even talked about reception of the main game, and I'd reorganize.
  • The reception section could use some expansion given the availability of sources.
  • Prose needs cleanup, in particular removing unnecessarily convoluted sentence constructions (lots of "it was said"-type passive voice that undermines the authority of the text.)
  • References do look much better (quick spot-check didn't reveal any issues); there's a blog referenced but I think in the context it meets SPS and "expert self-published opinion" threshold.

Aside from the reception section I think this is much more about cutting and cleanup. If people concur with the above I'll make an effort to effect the changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @David Fuchs: I come to the same conclusions as you. Not sure why we need so many citations in the lede as that info should be supported in the body, and most of the cited claims are uncontroversial. While MOS:PLOTLENGTH doesn't mention video games, it does not recommend more than 700 words for other media so that might be a good goal for the synopsis. Reception needs an expansion to include information on re-releases. I support any efforts to cut when needed, expand with new sources, and cleanup this article. I am happy to do a more thorough review and copyedit once the cleanup is complete. Z1720 (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @David Fuchs: Just for the record, I concur with the above and have taken a partial stab at restating the intro of the lead and little tidbits in the body. Hope that those steps will go some way to inform further work on fleshing out this article. Electroguv (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd be up for taking a shot at salvaging the article, however, a cursory glance reveals a large amount of necessary work that I believe calls for a collaboration. Methinks that some time to determine whether a second volunteer will come forward, a week perhaps, should be taken to bring matters to a head with this article. Some offline matters prevent me from attempting a straightforward one-man job, but in the meantime I'll try to patch up things here and there as time allows. Electroguv (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for the work you have been doing on the article, very helpful. What particular things do you think you need help with?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wow, thanks for coming forward so quickly! I'll make sure to get back to you in the near term with the suggestions. Electroguv (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Electroguv and David Fuchs: Are there still outstanding issues being worked on here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pending the response of the other pinged user, my current perspective is that there are still some general text issues across the article (wording, grammar, prose flow etc.) that need to be ironed out, and I think that the Development and Reception sections need an overhaul as regards their coverage and prose construction. As far as those issues go, I'd take the liberty of asking for about five days' worth of extra time to introduce the necessary changes. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just chiming in that I've seen this ping, but that my wiki-time is currently being focused on arbitration and I will circle back to check the article thoroughly once that's done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having taken a lot more time than previously expected to add the revisions I've been planning to add to the article, I have to make an update on the situation for the sake of clarity. Substantial changes have been made to the development section; basically, it's been rewritten from scratch, fleshed out and expanded in terms of coverage and structure. The Connections to Ico and Remake subsections of the plot and development sections respectively have been rearranged due to their dubious academic value in the first case and tenuous connection with the overall article subject in the second case. As such, the material formerly present in Ico subsection has been removed altogether (as its associated topic is covered by the new development section), and the Remake segment as well as mentions of the game's PlayStation 3 remastered version have been incorporated into the Legacy section, where their placement seems to be well-judged. While I believe that quite a bit of work still needs to carried out to make the article comply with current FA standards (primarily as regards the reception section), I do think that I'll be able to push the matter through by the end of this week. Many thanks for your patience as always. Electroguv (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Electroguv? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noticed this ping right away yet I'm replying just now because of real-life matters. They are also the reason that has been preventing me from adding changes at a swift pace as befits the urgency of this review. That said, my goal of completing the article revision is not frustrated despite the setbacks, and I intend to proceed promptly with my planned edits. If I might make so bold as to ask, I need a timeframe of 5-6 days to introduce the changes. I'd be truly grateful if granted the opportunity to make good on my promise and to see that this article keeps its status. I am much obliged to be able to count on your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not an issue, this FAR will stay open as long as improvements are being made. (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have only been a few edits since 17 October and they are mostly minor. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Moving as discussion seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe what is outstanding here? There have been no edits since October 30, and Electroguv hasn't edited since Oct 22. If there is still work outstanding, is it time to move to Delist? We have at least half a dozen noms sitting at the bottom of the page, and I question how long we should leave them here if weeks are elapsing with no work progressing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like Hog Farm's initial concerns about sourcing that started off the review have been mostly fixed with the exception of Kotaku (pre-2010). The only obvious issue that sticks out for me is that it does not cite any of the academic sources I found and listed earlier in this FAR, which could potentially be a comprehensiveness/well-researched issue. But I really don't know enough about what's expected for video games to say. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Electroguv and David Fuchs: do you support keeping or delisting the article at this point? (t · c) buidhe 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In replying to the collected queries concerning the current state of things with this article, I would first like to plead for a reconsideration of the motion to close. I should mention that my preceding inability to edit the article has to do with IRL issues related to sickness, so the setback that may have contributed to the present dilemma was certainly not intentional on my end, if that point has any relevance. Should you find this circumstance to have any merit, I would like to reaffirm my focus on ironing out the remaining issues with the article (including the ones highlighted above) and ask for the liberty to complete my planned article revision, with reference to the nominator's reply to my October 17, 2021 statement. I am fairly confident about being able to carry out the necessary changes by the end of the week (in particular, the Release subsection is still incomprehensive to my eyes), and so I once again request to be granted the opportunity to implement the edits within the allotted timeframe. I will try to incorporate information from the academic sources described above should I discover the citable parts to be immediately relevant to the subject matter, and will endeavor to make visible progress with the text in the short run. Of course, the final say rests with this article's reviewers, so I can only hope that I have been able to make an acceptable case for the reversal of the FARC motion and that a quality overhaul of this article is still within the realm of possibility. In any event, I will defer to your ultimate decision. Thank you for your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Electroguv, I wish you a quick recovery from your illness. Definitely the article looks in much better shape than when we started. I think it was looking like editing had stalled, but if there are still plans to improve the article, I definitely agree that it should stay open. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also archived all the dead citations where necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I've finally managed to gather the necessary sources for retooling the Release and Reception sections. I'll be implementing the tidbits shortly. Electroguv (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been no edits to the article since 22 December. (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: There has been at least one edit from Electroguv since then (t · c) buidhe 19:46, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nikkimaria Due to lack of knowledge about video garmes, I'm unable to identify any fatal flaws with this article, so it might as well be closed without delisting in order to move on. (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2022 (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_review/Shadow_of_the_Colossus/archive1&oldid=1078723041"