Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Braid (video game)/archive2

< 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 Karanacs 20:35, 26 May 2009 [1].

Braid (video game) edit

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Previous nomination for this faced the issue that the PC release of the game was pending and it was expected that there could be expansion of the article from that. We're about a month past its release and only a few interesting tidbits have come up - that a level editor exists for the game and a handful of reviews, but otherwise no other significant details. It may gain a few end-of-year awards for the PC side, but I don't see that being a hindrance to the present article as it already has awards from the 360 release. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Images
    • Is there a way to cut out one of the gameplay images? It seems to me that the Donkey Kong influence is nice and all, but since there's no significant information about what's occuring in the frame anyhow, it could be lost and the gameplay image being used to compare to Blow's drawings could be made to pull double duty to afford greater compatibility with WP:NFCC.
  • Content
    • There's a couple really short paragraphs that either probably shouldn't have their own subsections *looking at you, Story* and paragraphs that seem a tad out of place (such as the mention of Donkey Kong-inspired levels, which I feel should be merged in with development or else mentioned in passing when talking about the rest of the levels earlier. Likewise with the last sentence. Aside from being improper, it's a letdown to end the article with such an unformed statement.
    • The reception is a tad slim in terms of review diversity, I'll see if I can scrounge up some MSM reviewers or tidbits that might add to the article. I found a bunch of good stuff actually, so send me an email and I'll reply with a .zip file of PDFs. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The DK-inspired image has been removed in favor of the single image in the art section to show gameplay. I've tried to group the smaller paragraphs a bit more. I got your PDFs, and there's not much more than hasn't already been said but they are paper sources that can be added. --MASEM (t) 03:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noting that I added a few of the print reviewers comments to help flesh out the reception. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See comments above. --MASEM (t) 14:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave these out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think all of the above meet WP:SPS criterion; Justin McElroy's work has been published by Computer Games Magazine, The Escapist, and GameDaily, so he seems to be an established author in meeting with criteria. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • The enigmatic story follows a man named Tim, who attempts to rescue his princess from a monster, though additional text in the story has led to several possible alternative interpretations. - Interpretations of what, the wording is also awkward; ie. "his" princess
  • Link Platform genre (platform game) in the lead, too

Otherwise, it seems good so far. I'll have more comments later. ceranthor 13:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • These should be fixed but other suggestions are welcome. --MASEM (t) 15:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I haven't had time to give this a thorough review (okay, I lie, I've been mostly goofing off and recreating the Rhine in RollerCoaster Tycoon 3) but my major issues have been taken care of. I will try and give it a copyedit, but it does not appear to be suffering from obvious mistakes at a glance. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Doesn't meet the 1a bar in my opinion. Odd word choices, grammatical constructions, and often confusing or incomplete thoughts. Examples at random:
    • "The enigmatic story, when read literally,..." Rather odd sentence. I see little reason for "when read literally"...plot descriptions, such as "follows a man named Tim who attempts to rescue a princess from a monster", are generally literal creatures. Would be nice to be a little more descriptive than just "it can be metaphorically interpreted in several different ways". Give a general sense of these different interpretations.
    • "David Hellman drew the artwork, which underwent several iterations until it satisfied Blow's vision. " Who is he, and why is this here in the lead? I really loathe the simplistic "This person did this" constructs that I find so common in film/video game articles. It serves little other than to bore the reader when he/she does not know who "this person" is.
    • "eventually becoming the top-rated title on Xbox Live." What does this mean? What measure are we using for "top-rated" here?
    • "fundamental game elements " Word ordering.
    • "along with an "overworld" in the form of Tim's house. " This made no sense to me. Why not just combine the first half of this sentence with the next?
    • "Time and Forgiveness plays as an ordinary platform game" Was quite confused for a few seconds until I realized that Time and Forgiveness was the name of the worlds...can this be made clearer? Perhaps with "the following worlds" somewhere in the intro sentence.
    • "As such, it has been interpreted as an oblique ironic comment about traditional platform game design." Oblique? Ironic? How so? Explain? And who lies behind the passive veil?
    • "for example, a door may remain open once it is opened, even if the player rewinds time to before it was opened. " I understand what is meant here, but this sounds ridiculous. Would recommend recasting (or finding a new example, as I wondered whether or not the door could just be shut...).
    • "Time and Place has time linked to the player character's location on the level." Confusing description. Odd word choice with "has". Seems like time is tied to movement, not location by the description in the next sentence...
    • "This sets up a large number of complex correspondences that must be managed." I question the word choices in this sentence.
  • Skipping and skimming down...
    • "One common theory, based on the inclusion of the famous quote stated by Kenneth Bainbridge—"Now we are all sons of bitches"—after the detonation of the first atomic bomb is popular, though Blow has stated that there is more than just one interpretation of the story" Huh? What's the theory? Inclusion means?
    • "Jonathan Blow came up with the concept of Braid in December 2004, inspired while on a trip to Thailand," Combine for better flow. What "inspired" him?
    • Put some thought into the quotations you use. Think about why they are there and what purpose they serve the reader. "provided a "different and interesting" sound" <-- generic, uninteresting, and uninformative quotation...what does "different" mean? Different from what? Interesting == ? "they "will feel very good about" completing" Again, what's the purpose of using this rather bland quotation? "and aimed "to present something that isn't necessarily clear-cut"." Seems like one of those quotations that have lost their meaning by taking it out of context. What's this "something"? "Clear-cut" == ?
    • Please check your linking (common terms, overlinking, same link multiple times, etc.). BuddingJournalist 08:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. I'm going to concur with BuddingJournalist, at least based on the Reception section. The strategy for quotations stymies me. Unless the quotation is profoundly interesting or difficult to paraphrase, we should be writing in our own words. Other glitches:
    • MoS problems with logical punctuation in quotations
    • "billards" -> billiards?
    • "short length", what does it mean?
    • "Sam Roberts, game director for the Slamdance Film Festival Guerilla Gamemaking Competition, was impressed that Braid did not 'feel immature' as it 'expects much' of the player ..." Grammar.
    • "Nick Suttner of 1UP.com commented that Braid's artwork 'juxtapose old-school design sensibilities ...'" Grammar.
    • "The game was primarily criticized for its short length." In sentences such as these, move the adverb as far right as makes logical sense, i.e. "The game was criticized primarily for its short length." Ignoring the problem with "short length".
    • "The game's price was also seen as a negative for the game, though reviews did state that 'Braid is worth every penny'. Huh? This statement contradicts itself. How was the price a negative if it was worth the price?
Lots of fit and finish needed. --Laser brain (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • You are forgetting the URL to the official website in the fair use template of the main logo.
    • File:Braid-art-1.jpg and File:Braid-art-2.jpg appear to be watermarked.
    • Ref 41 & 59 need updating.
    • Consider splitting soundtrack list in to two columns.
    • Ref 46 needs to note that it is a forum post.--Otterathome (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any watermarking. Could you point it out? Also, I tried to copyedit based on BuddingJournalist's suggestions, though there's still some more to be fixed.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Top left, but thinking about it, it might be part of the game.--Otterathome (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both cases, they are part of the game - those outlines represent the puzzle pieces that are to be collected during the game, and are filled in when you find those pieces. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On Ref 41, it is just a link redirect to the article location - there's no need to change the URL. Ref 59 seems perfectly fine (url goes right to where it expects). As far as I can tell, for ref 46, there's no requirement to mark forum posts as such (if it was from USENET, there's a different citation template for it, but general web forums (which I will note, its confirmed that that's Jonathan Blow posting that) don't require anything special. I don't see any reason to split an 8-element list into columns, particularly when most soundtracks are just single lists. I did fix the rationale on the main logo to add the game site and copyright owner info. --MASEM (t) 22:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since it looks like the article won't be passing (again), I'd just like to add a few comments before it closes. It looks like it has the depth of content expected from a FA; it just lacks the polish. I suggest finding multiple (2-3) experienced copyeditors to run through it and smooth out the rough patches. Even with the correction of those prose errors noted above, the article clearly needs a lot of work to satisfy 1a. I would also suggest a peer review, to help locate any more critical problems that might exist. It wouldn't take too much for this article to be FA material, but it isn't quite there. Keep up the good work; it'll probably pass next time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's rare for me to not lodge a "support" or "oppose", but I hope the following explains why. I read this article again last week, hoping to do a full review then, as it was likely my opposition that scuppered this FAC the last time around. I haven't had time until now, but last week, similarly to the other reviewers, I found issues with the prose, though re-reading today it seems a lot better. Issues remain (some redundancies, perhaps an overly passive tone in the lead), but I won't be opposing this nomination on 1a grounds, as the other reviewers covered the bases well enough. This comment is more a question that might have an impact on 1b (comprehensiveness), depending on the answer. Braid's story, more so than some video games, has been subject to analysis and interpretation. The article acknowledges this, with brief comment in the "Development" and "Plot" sections, but do you think that we might be short-changing the reader by not including more? If we were to treat the subject as we would any other art/entertainment article, we would see a more in-depth examination of the work's themes, rather than the one paragraph we have that simply states that the game "has been subject to multiple interpretations" followed by a very brief description of one of them. This AV Club interview with Blow, for example, is cited only twice and yet seems to contain a lot of information on the writing and the author's intent—including divergent interpretations (no less valid)—that we don't cover in the article. It would be a shame, a missed opportunity, if we were to treat video games—especially this one—in effect as a lesser art form not mature enough to warrant the weighty treatment we give to other entertainment articles, such as those for films (as a film article on anything but the most simple of summer blockbusters would likely fail its FAC if it didn't include a decent section on thematic interpretations). I'd be interested to read your thoughts on the issue. If you think the discussion is best had elsewhere, I'm OK with that, but I thought that it would be a good point for other potential reviewers to consider too. All the best, Steve T • C 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly a discussion of themes would seem to make sense - but while there may be a few more I can pull from the AV Club interview, there's no reliable source that goes into much detail of the themes - all of that is forum posts and blog pages from players themselves. All that the reliable sources give is the most obvious interpretation (the bomb) and then say its been discussed heavily on such boards, but really do not summarize this. It may be in the future someone will write a serious work to review the metaphorical aspects of Braid, but as with most video games, this is an if rather than a when that occurs for works like art-house films, simply because that type of journalism in video game coverage is hard to find. In that regard, I cannot expect that part to fail the FA comprehensiveness requirement simply because that's not a typical part of game coverage. Sure, I'll keep watching (I've RSS feeds for these things) but I don't expect much (as compared to watching for PC reviews of the game when it came out for that platform, that being more a likely guarantee). --MASEM (t) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, aye, the lack of availability of decent sources is the biggest bar to an interpretations section, which is why I left it as a comment rather than a !vote. Still at the very least, that interview might have enough in it to suggest something towards a "Writing" subsection (if placed with some of the existing development information) that could be the germ of an "Analysis" section at some point far in the future. Oh, and it isn't just art-house films that we demand a "Themes" section for, as David will attest. :) All the best, Steve T • C 14:15, 26 May 2009 (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/Braid_(video_game)/archive2&oldid=1138456373"