- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Montanabw(talk) 23:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Mischief Makers edit
- ... that twelve years later, GamesRadar called the 1997 Mischief Makers "possibly the most underrated and widely ignored ... on the N64" (pictured)?
- Reviewed: Prodigy (video game)
Improved to Good Article status by Czar (talk). Self nominated at 23:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC).
-
GA reviews are not the same as DYK reviews. This review needs more details, in accordance with DYK review instructions. Details that are supposed to be checked in a review can be found at DYK Reviewing guide. Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Freikorp, ping czar ♔ 19:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry. Haven't reviewed a GA DYK upgrade before.
Hook is cited, an appropriate length, and interesting. A very similar statement to the hook appears in the article itself. GA upgrade within accepted time frame; as per GA requirements, article has no bare URL's, obvious bias or disputes. QPQ checks out. Image is free of copyright restrictions, is used in the article, is appropriate to the article, is high quality and greatly exceeds minimum size requirements. Apologies if i've still missed something. Freikorp (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I know the article is really long, but it must be checked for WP:Close paraphrasing. Just checking footnote 2 against the plot synopsis shows that the writer isn't using his own words. Ditto for footnote 10. Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Yoninah, we went over this before. When the plot is summarized in two sentences in the source, how else do you want to phrase it? This is textbook WP:LIMITED, and the sentence is as substantially different from the source as it can be. Also ref 2 and 10 are used many times in the article across whole paragraphs so do you want to give at least a quote to substantiate your claim? Because I just did a spot check and I'm getting nothing czar ♔ 21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that you're not copying whole sentences, but you seem to be using the same words. Isn't there any way to paraphrase?
- Source: Mischief Makers is a single player game, with a story which transports the player to the Planet Clancer, thrown into turmoil and on the brink of civil war, a situation brought about by the evil intentions of its Emperor and his Imperial forces. The Emperor is obsessed by a visitor to Clancer, a supposed genius in robotics, called Professor Theo. He has gone as far to brainwash a large number of local Clancer people and sent them to kidnap Theo, but he has underestimated the main character, the Ultra-InterGalactic-Cybot G, Marina Liteyears. Under the player's control Marina will do everything in her power to rescue Theo, grabbing, shaking and throwing anyone and anything standing between her and her mission ... The gameplay revolves around grabbing, shaking and throwing, whether it is an enemy, a missile, a round floating Clanball platform, or a hidden warp star gate.
- Article: The story takes place on the Planet Clancer, a planet on the cusp of civil war due to the actions of its Emperor and his Imperial forces. In his obsession, the Emperor kidnaps visiting robotics genius Professor Theo by way of brainwashed local Clancer people.[2] His creation,[3] the player-character Ultra-InterGalactic-Cybot G Marina Liteyears pursues the professor and grabs, throws, and shakes the obstacles in her way: enemies, floating Clanballs, warp stars, and missiles.
- Yoninah (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Yoninah, we went over this before. When the plot is summarized in two sentences in the source, how else do you want to phrase it? This is textbook WP:LIMITED, and the sentence is as substantially different from the source as it can be. Also ref 2 and 10 are used many times in the article across whole paragraphs so do you want to give at least a quote to substantiate your claim? Because I just did a spot check and I'm getting nothing czar ♔ 21:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry. Haven't reviewed a GA DYK upgrade before.
I had asked how you would see it restated. The game uses enemies, floating Clanballs, "warp stars", and "missiles", and the player "shakes" and "grabs", and that's what they are and how every single source will describe it, so I can't avoid those terms (WP:LIMITED) without complete silliness. Same for the plot jargon—I don't see how else you'd like it phrased. Furthermore, I don't think it's a good idea to use the first lines of an article for your close paraphrasing checks since, as stated in the link above, this information will tend to be basic background information that every source includes the same way. Please don't make accusations about close paraphrasing without actually checking (or spot checking) non-intro parts of the article. czar ♔ 22:18, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- OK, you know best. Let me rephrase my comment to User:Freikorp: Did you also check for close paraphrasing? Yoninah (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I only checked for the hook itself (no issues there). I assumed checks for close paraphrasing for the entire article would have already been done in order for it to reach GA status (being an editor who has upgraded articles to GA almost single-handedly, I know how scrupulous the review to upgrade them can be, so I didn't think it was necessary in this case). In other words, I would of checked the entire article if it was not GA. I'll try and find time to look at the entire article sometime later today. Freikorp (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wait it was a long day at work. Just finished checking. The only close paraphrasing i'm getting is in the gameplay section. The biggest complete match is "marina can run jump and boost in eight directions" - straight from footnote 4. I'm no expert on this, but Czar seems to make a good point regarding WP:LIMITED in defence for describing plot and gameplay. I don't see a major issue with paraphrasing here, i'de be happy for the article to pass. Freikorp (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- Pinging Nikkimaria, who's the DYK expert in close paraphrasing issues, to comment here. It would be best to wait for her thoughts before taking further action. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'm seeing some small phrases that should be quoted or further paraphrased - for example "gameplay mechanic unique to the title" vs "gameplay feature unique to the title" in the source. There are no major issues that I can see, so it shouldn't take too much to fix this. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria, want to take another peek? czar ♔ 02:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)