Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/LittleBigPlanet (2008 video game)/archive1

LittleBigPlanet (2008 video game)

Featured article candidates/LittleBigPlanet (2008 video game)/archive1

Nominator(s): Lazman321 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LittleBigPlanet has been a childhood favorite of mine. It is a platformer for the PlayStation 3 in which you play as a Sackboy. It was a really innovative game in which you could create whatever level you wanted and easily share them online. Unfortunately, these online features are no longer available, so in a way, this serves as a post-mortem to what used to be more than just a game. Lazman321 (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging GAN reviewer ProtoDrake and peer reviewers Boneless Pizza! and LunaEclipse. Lazman321 (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size

Some images are missing alt text

File:LittleBigPlanetOfficialUKBoxArt.png needs a more expansive FUR. Ditto File:Littlebigplanetscreen814_screen.jpg, File:LBP_sackboys.jpg, File:Yellowhead_craftworld.jpg

File:Dayofthedead.jpg: what's the copyright status of the artwork pictured?

File:Flickr_-_Nic's_events_-_British_Museum_with_Cory_and_Mary,_6_Sep_2007_-_356.jpg is quite blurry. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I believe I have addressed your comments in the article and the images, though I am confused by your comment regarding the Day of the Dead image. There's no artwork; the image is depicting decorated skulls and was licensed by the person who took the picture. Lazman321 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decorations are artwork and are eligible for copyright protection, unless there is a specific reason to believe otherwise in this case? I'd also note that there are quite a few non-free images here, and typically the more you have the stronger the rationale for each needs to be; I don't think the FURs for the non-lead images quite meet that bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Maybe for the Craftworld screenshot, which I can remove, but I would say that the two gameplay screenshots are essential for illustrating the game's main elements, such as its platform game design and its creative elements. If you feel the fair-use rationales are not strong enough, how would you suggest I improve them? Also, I'm still confused regarding the Day of the Dead image. What makes the image different than, say, the lead image for calavera. Technically, that's also a decorated skull with a similar license to the image used here. Or do you have a different image in mind? Lazman321 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The calavera image could be argued to not meet the threshold of originality, whereas the one here clearly would. As to the FURs, I'd suggest elaborating on why these images are important to the reader's understanding. For example, "The image is to illustrate customisation within LittleBigPlanet, which is a major part of the game, through the different costumes that Sackboy can wear" - what does a reader get from that image that they wouldn't get from just being told you can customize costumes? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Sorry for the wait. I have replaced the calavera image and expanded the fair-use rationales. Is this sufficient? Lazman321 (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calavera is fine. I do still have the same question on the costumes as above - the rationale has been expanded but that isn't quite answered. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just remove it then. Lazman321 (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Anything else? Lazman321 (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vacant0

Will review this. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{clear}} to the end of the Plot section.

Done

List of LittleBigPlanet downloadable content packs is already mentioned in the article. Remove it from the See also section.

Done

Use {{annotated link}} for ModNation Racers and Rag Doll Kung Fu: Fists of Plastic in the See also section.

Decided instead just to remove them since both are already mentioned in the article.

Note b should have a reference.

Removed

The level editor is the main focus of the game, allowing the player to create levels and publish them online. → The level editor, which allows the player to create levels and publish them online, is the main focus of the game.

Done

LittleBigPlanet won several Game of the Year awards and won additional awards → LittleBigPlanet won several Game of the Year awards and additional awards

Done

Unlink LittleBigPlanet series. It is already wikilinked in the second sentence.

Done

The player can play the levels in the game, create levels, and share them online. → The player can create and play levels, and share them online.

Done

The player has the ability to play the game with up to three other players. → The player can play the game with up to three other players.

Done

Is it MyMoon or My Moon?

Done

@Vacant0: Thanks for the review; I've addressed your comments. Lazman321 (talk) 14:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did not spot any issues in the Plot section.
Italicise Dragons' Den.

Done

LittleBigPlanet was designed around its associated tagline: "Play, Create, Share". Players could play the story levels, create levels using the creation tools, and publish them to the community for others to play. – This is already mentioned in the Gameplay section, therefore I'm unsure whether is it applicable to mention it again in the Development section.

Done: Removed

the design of Mr. Yellowhead would evolve → the design of Mr. Yellowhead evolved

Done

Through the use of updates, Media Molecule could make changes to the game after release. → Through the use of updates, Media Molecule made changes to the game after release.

Done

@Vacant0: Comments addressed. Lazman321 (talk) 22:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and at TSG in October 2008 – I assume it's meant to say TGS and not TSG.

Done

Did not spot any issues in the Release section.
Star rating has been discarded. Change Giant Bomb and X-Play review ratings to 5/5 instead.

Done

Continuing. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

claiming that it allowed the player to create any level they wanted and share it – Isn't this already similarly explained in the Gameplay section? That players can create and share their levels? I'd suggest removing this then.

Done

I'd suggest rewriting the sentence with "genius" at the end of it.

How's this?

"good tutorials" → a good introduction to the game

Done

both mentions of and it would be released → and was released

Done

It would be confirmed by Sony the same month. → It was confirmed by Sony the same month.

Done

The game would be primarily developed by → The game was primiarily developed by

Done

would be announced → was announced

Done

@Vacant0: Comments addressed. Lazman321 (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. I did not notice any other major issues with the article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ProtoDrake: Source Review (Pass)

I'll do my best to get round to this in a timely manner. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, going through the references, checking status/reliability first. Only two stood out.

Ref 110: Kotaku's got a red flag over it for more recent articles. This equivalent from IGN will make a sound substitute. (Archived version here).
Ref 230 is dead, and its status should change to reflect that.

--ProtoDrake (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ProtoDrake: Both done. Lazman321 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321: Sources seem sound now, having looked them over. Others might pick up something I miss, but I think it counts as a Pass on the source review. Everything else in the references seems to check out. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by David Fuchs

In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Any progress? Lazman321 (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the wait; doesn't seem like your ping went through, btw. Unfortunately at this juncture, I think I'm going to have to oppose.

The prose is overall rough and wordy, filled with redundancy ("Sales were initially disappointing; however, the game was ultimately a commercial success, reaching four million in sales by 2018"), passive voice ("it was" throughout in places it's not needed), and weird sentence constructions. ("Keys are hidden throughout the main levels, which when collected unlock bonus levels, for a grand total of fifty levels." Could be made a lot plainer by saying something like "Keys hidden in the stages unlock new areas for a total of fifty levels.")
"After a prototype called Craftworld was created, it was pitched to Sony Computer Entertainment Worldwide Studios president Phil Harrison. " - why is this all in passive voice?
The first paragraph of the lead feels a little weird. You talk about the level editor before talking about the premise and story mode, and if the level editor is the most important part about the game, it's weird it's not elaborated on further.
"the LittleBigPlanet series would ultimately consist of several spin-offs and two direct sequels." It's weird to phrase this like the LittleBigPlanet series is for sure never going to come out with any more media.
"LittleBigPlanet is a physics-based platform game that is designed around the tagline "Play. Create. Share". The player can create and play levels, and share them online." If we're going to elaborate on what play, create, share means, I really don't think the tagline is necessary here; it just makes the resulting prose sound further redundant and clunky.
"The pod, which takes the form of a cardboard ship, serves as a hub for these options. The ability to play other levels is on the planet known as "LittleBigPlanet", where story mode and published levels are available. The level editor is on MyMoon, where the player can publish levels onto LittleBigPlanet. " None of this is explained. A pod comes out of nowhere, that the hub is apparently a solar system, also unexplained, what MyMoon is, unclarified (and why does it not get square quotes but "LittleBigPlanet" does?)
"The player can give Sackboy one of four emotions—happy, sad, scared, and angry—with an emotion capable of being given a degree of intensity" what does the emotional state of Sackboy do? If this is just sackboy customization shouldn't it go in the following content creation section where that's discussed?
"The player could access the published levels through the planet LittleBigPlanet" this is redundant with the mention in the first paragraph, as is the repeated mention of MyMoon.
"a world full of creations made by Creator Curators." Who are?
"Healey and Smith left Lionhead Studios in December 2005, along with Evans and Ettouney." Why are Evans and Attorney mentioned separately? The text implies they left the same time, so why doesn't it just say "The four left Lionhead in December 2005" or similar?
"They created a prototype of their idea, a game called Craftworld, a physics-based, 2D side-scrolling game, with a placeholder character called Mr. Yellowhead" The way the text is written, it implies that Media Molecule arranged a meeting with Harrison, then created a prototype; this doesn't seem likely.
"On 28 October, the servers were shut down due to "glitching issues"." So they were never restored?
"as well as exclusive levels" this seems peacocky, given that I imagine the levels existed through the existing community share? If they're entirely new levels by community creators, that should be clearer.
Given the claims made in the reception section, you really should have more than a single contemporary critic ref for assertions like "the community aspect has also been widely praised". (Also, "has also been"? Why is this not just past tense?)
"Despite the popularity, there has been little scholarly research on the culture surrounding LittleBigPlanet" A single study from 2014 seems like a poor source to use for this without additional context.
I'm concerned the Influence section uses some questionable sourcing to go beyond the facts. "the required tools were not available to console players at the time" seems like a pretty blanket statement to make without qualification given that there were other console games with map editors and/or file sharing capabilities, for instance. So you can argue what "first game of this type" could be, but the contemporary sourcing I think is pretty thin and the worst option for citing this. The best sourcing in it is the 2011 NYT piece, but there it's much more expressly about custom games-within-a-game type content, which to me reads a lot differently than how the prose of this article casts it.
The article also suggests that LittleBigPlanet inspired Minecraft, which given that the later came out within six months and has never been discussed as far as I know by the creator, feels like again using sources without context.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I will try to work through the article section-by-section to see if I can address your concerns. Lazman321 (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]