Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine/archive2

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 by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2022 [1].

Monaco: What's Yours Is MineEdit

Nominator(s): Anarchyte (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

After an unsuccessful (albeit low participation) first attempt back in 2018, I am nominating Monaco for FA status again. I have gone through it several times over the interim years to ensure that it meets the criteria. Everything is up to date with the announced sequel, and all the other sections have all the relevant information. I look forward to any suggestions you may have. Anarchyte (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review by NikkimariaEdit

  • Suggest scaling up the screenshot and providing a more descriptive caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, but scaling should be done using |upright= rather than fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Using upright 1.6. This might be too big though. Anarchyte (talk) 02:08, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


  • The storyline link in the lead seems unnecessary to me as it is a concept most readers will already know.
  • Xbox 360 should be linked in the lead.
  • I have a comment for this part, with critics complimenting its ability to feel harmonious with the gameplay. I would avoid the sentence construction (with X verb-ing). It is a note that I have received and I have seen often in the FAC space. I have been repeatedly told it is not appropriate for a FA writing so I would remove any instance of these in the article.
    • I've removed the one mentioned, but just to note, are you referring to all instances of "verb-ing" or just "with x verb-ing" (i.e., "saying", "stating", etc)? I will go through and reword some of the reception section "ing"s now regardless.
      • I would limit it to just "with x verb-ing" as the rest should be okay. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Is the part about the game being originally conceived as a "combination of The Sims, Diablo, and Hitman" notable enough to be mentioned in the lead? While it is interesting information, it seems more like a detail best left in the article. If anything, it may be more noteworthy to mention this was originally envisioned as a Xbox Live Indie Games.
    • Reworded that portion: After a hiatus, Schatz returned to the game and continued development, initially with the plan of releasing it as an Xbox Live Indie Game. Let me know what you think, and strike if you think this is suitable.
      • Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not entirely convinced the quote box in the "Development and release" section is necessary, especially since there is already quite a bit in that section. It looks rather cluttered to me.
    • I quite like quote boxes in development sections as they provide the reader with insight into why the game was developed, straight from the developers in a way that paraphrasing and encyclopedic writing can't. I do appreciate your opinion here though, so if others also think it's not necessary, I'll cut it. One way around the cluttered right side of the article could be to align the award image to the left, but I wanted to avoid any MOS:SANDWICH concerns.
      • Understandable. I will leave this matter up for other reviewers and this should not hold back my support. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The "they were crazy" quote does not seem particularly useful or informative to me.
  • It is not necessary to have the citation after this part, a level designer and producer for Monaco, since the same citation is used at the end of the same sentence.
  • I would include a link to the porting article for the first mention of "port" in the article.
  • I'd avoid one-word quotes such as "bold", "wonderful", and "sloppy" as they are not particularly informative and take away from the other quotes in the article.
    • Removed all from Reception. I've kept "gold" in Development and release as I don't think the same message could be conveyed without it.
      • That works for me. As long as most of the quotes are dealt with, one should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • This idea, Reviewers compared Monaco to other games and films, is mentioned in the lead and the article, but I only see a connection being made to Ocean's 11. What are the other connections being made?
    • The article had, until yesterday, a comparison with Metal Gear and Pac-Man, but it was sourced to Metro so I cut it. I've reintroduced similar comparisons using the Gamesradar review.
      • Thank you for adding this information to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Why not put the information about the sales together? There is currently information on it in the first and last paragraphs of the "Reception" section, and I think it would be better to have it all together.
  • I am not sure the awards should have their own sub-section. It looks choppy to have such a short sub-section and it may be best to integrate this information in the main "Reception" section.
    • How do you suggest it be arranged? Simply remove the section header and leave awards at the bottom? I could also see it being appended to the end of the opening paragraph of the section.
      • Putting it at the end of the opening paragraph sounds good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
        • I've chronologically added it to the first paragraph. Anarchyte (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Why not just use Monaco II instead of Monaco 2 if that is the announced title?

I hope this review is helpful. I have focused my comments on the prose as I will leave the images and the sources to other reviewers. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Have a wonderful rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Aoba47. I've replied above. I'll just note that in 2018, JimmyBlackwing conducted a review of the reliability of the sources and not much has changed since then (except for the removal of Metro and Softpedia). Assuming that is sufficient, the sources just need a spot-check review, which I'd been conducting myself while I rewrote portions. Anarchyte (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I have left some responses to your responses. I think a separate source review has to be done for the FAC and I do not think it cares over from a peer review (although that is only my understanding). Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I've changed the reception section to incorporate the awards, so I think that's everything. I've left aligned this image in #Development and release to try to reduce the amount of white space being {{clear right}}ed in #Sequel. I don't think MOS:SANDWICH will have any issue with this arrangement. Anarchyte (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. Unfortunately, the current image placement does cause MOS:SANDWICH issues in my view. Aoba47 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: I'm not sure, I had a look at some other FAs in various topics and it looks like as long as the images aren't large, this sort of placement is fine: 1, 2, 3, 4. I think MOS:SANDWICH is for when you place two wide images are directly beneath each other in the wikitext, making it impossible to unsandwich the text regardless of the screen width. If you zoom in on this article, the text gets unsandwiched (zooming in on MOS:SANDWICH results in one image directly following the other). @Gog the Mild: As a coordinator, perhaps you could shed some light onto how sandwiching is handled? Anarchyte (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
There are two clear cases of sandwiching in the article which need resolving. Or I would be happy to do it for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Thanks for clarifying. I assume they're the screenshot and award images? What I don't understand is how these are violations when the articles linked above passed without issue. I'm fine with relocating the award image, but left aligning screenshot images parallel with infoboxes is something present in pretty much every video game FA. I clicked on a few from WP:VG/FA and found these immediately: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. Anarchyte (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I don't know when sandwiching became part of the MoS; the FAC criteria have changed over time; not everything always gets picked up at FAC; images often get added or moved by drive by editors after promotion.

I see no sandwiching in numbers 3, 6 or 7; I would not personally have promoted any of the others. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, is this not sandwiching: Imgur album? If not, is it because the images are smaller, and if so, what size do you or Nikkimaria suggest to avoid this issue? Upright 1.4 might work, or we could revert to the default and add a "(click to expand)" at the end of the caption. Otherwise, how do you suggest I rearrange the screenshot? I've collapsed part of the infobox to reduce the length of the right-hand side already. I've also played around with the concept of center aligning it and adding another screenshot using {{multiple images}} but that template forces px size. Anarchyte (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Everything looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion. My comments were primarily focused on the prose so I will leave images to whoever does the image review and to any other interested editors, and that does not prevent me from supporting the FAC based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Now that I've removed the pull-quote, do you think the sandwiching could be avoided by reducing the screenshot to upright ~1.4 and then aligning right? Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I think that if you put the image in "Gameplay" on the right you should be fine re sandwiching. I don't see any need to reduce the image size, but that is up to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

David FuchsEdit

Review in progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Oppose for now. I think the biggest stumbling block I have with the article is prose. In general, there's a lot of unnecessarily long or confusing sentence constructions when something shorter and clearer could do. Lots of passive voice, etc. In addition, the gameplay section at this point feels like it presumes too much knowledge of the game to be easy to follow. I don't feel like I actually have an idea of what it really means to play this game, what the loop is like.

  • Prose:
    • The game features both a single-player and cooperative game modes. The former sees the player explore Monaco's storyline, which consists of four acts: The first three follow various characters' recollections of prior experiences and the final act is played from the perspective of the police. Separate from this, Monaco's cooperative mode allows up to four players to partake in heists and robberies in different locations.—Why bother explaining there are two modes if you're going to mention them sequentially? You could just say "In the single-player mode [...] A separate cooperative mode [...]"
      • I think it's useful to say which modes exist before explaining them. With this said, I've cut the "separate" and prefaced which mode is being discussed more obviously. Let me know what you think of this. Anarchyte (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Wintory's soundtrack also received a positive reception, as critics complemented its ability to feel harmonious with the gameplay.
      • Reduced the length of the sentence. Anarchyte (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Players must traverse the stages You mention stages before they're actually explained in the next sentence.
    • Given fog of war is talking about the more general sense, not video games, I think you need to do a better job explaining that for the purposes of people who don't know what it is.
    • Maps, stages, levels—if these are the same thing than you should probably use the same word consistently so it's clear.
      • Replaced. Campaign = overarching stages, mission = components of the campaign, map = the map where the mission takes place. Anarchyte (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
    • What is a "condensed" version? Is Enhanced just a shorter campaign?
    • It's unclear that the player is controlling the characters, and if they can only use one per stage or you have access to more.
    • The quantity of the gun's ammunition is limited — do all the guns have a collective ammo counter? Or is this talking about a single weapon?
    • The third paragraph of gameplay mostly seems to consist of material that feels like it should belong elsewhere. The line about characters in the second paragraph detailing characters, for example; or the bit about cooperative play where you talk about the differences in modes.
      • Rearranged. Let me know what you think. Anarchyte (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
    • They discuss the characters' imminent deportation — so the Locksmith and Voltaire are escaping together?
    • whose murder had been altered by the thieves — altered is a really weird word here. Do you mean that the murder was staged?
    • The Pickpocket claims the Gentleman has assumed Davide's identity - But two sentences ago you said Davide was the Gentleman.
      • My mistake. I've fixed up the confusion between Davide and the Gentleman. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • He asks about the Mole, whom she says has already been caught. - Unclear pronouns.
      • The Lookout is female, but as that hasn't been established I've swapped the pronouns for names. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I performed a light line edit on the plot, but I'm still running into issues. I get that part of the idea of the plot is that it's twisty, but the different timelines and events make it really hard to grok what's going on, and I'm wondering if part of the solution is radically simplifying parts of it. In particular, the Lookout's section gives us a bunch of details about the characters but since we don't know if any of it is actually true it seems weird to dwell on it. Is there any reason that section can't be reduced to "Inspector Voltaire interrogates the Lookout for information on the thieves' backgrounds, in exchange for an offer of asylum." or similar?
        • " To further confuse the police, the thieves plant evidence with Davide's fingerprints at a different crime scene. " — the tense here is also confusing, I presume they did this prior to their capture? But the tense suggests it happens concurrently.
          • Changed to "Planted". Anarchyte (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
        • I'm left confused why the crooks would blow up the boat and how that would confuse Interpol, how the Gentleman could receive a phone call from Davide if he was actually the Gentlemen, and stuff like that—there's so many twists to this plot that I cannot actuall tell what are real events.
          • That's kind of the point of the game's storyline. Because it's delivered through different alibis, the series of events is not sequential. Each paragraph is a different recount of the events. Anarchyte (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
            • On second thought, I wasn't satisfied with the Davide reveal in the Locksmith section either. Based on the dialogue in the levels Scorpion And The Frog and Securitech Corp. (you can find transcriptions online if necessary), the Gentleman identifies the person that called him as Davide, rather than the caller identifying themselves. I've reworded it to account for this. Anarchyte (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
        • As a side note, why are there citations to the game in the plot? Presumably the game's plot is being used to cite it already, and I don't really see what the quotes add (should probably be doing a better job summarizing without needing to quote the game so directly.)
          • They are only there when there are quotations. Anarchyte (talk) 03:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't think the pull quote in development meets with MOS:PULLQUOTE.
      • Removed. Aoba47 expressed similar concerns above and now that two people want it gone, I've removed it. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • To publish the game on Xbox Live, Schatz partnered with video game publishing company Majesco Entertainment.}} Wait, so it got rejected twice, but the next we hear it's being published? What changed?
      • It was rejected by Microsoft Game Studios twice. They then went to Majesco Entertainment. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Wintory later persuaded Schatz that a complete original soundtrack was warranted. is immediately followed by Wintory was excited by the request and both these statements feel like they cancel each other out; did Schatz ask for a full original soundtrack unprompted, or did Wintory convince him, in which case the "request" language makes no sense?
      • Good point. Replaced "request" with "project". Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Why does the article use present tense for "Pocketwatch Games has updated the game" when the next sentence says that it's no longer under active development?
      • Reworded into past tense. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Repeated overlinking (e.g. Xbox Live Indie Games, Xbox Games Store)
    • I'm left a bit confused as to what the development of Monaco actually looked like. Was it just developed by Schatz with help from Nguyen?
      • Yes, from what I gathered from my research and emailing Schatz, he was the lead developer until he met Nguyen, after which they both worked on it together, but Schatz maintained the lead developer role. MobyGames confirms this on the credits page. Which aspects of the Development section cause confusion? I thought the Nguyen content made it obvious that he was a secondary developer behind Schatz.
    • Reception section starts with restating an award we've already heard about in development.
      • The article had an awards section to prevent this repetition inside the main reception section, but it was merged after Aoba's comments above. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
        • I think it can just go in the development section, since it's not lengthy, and because those awards are from years before the game properly released, as opposed to just E3 showings in the six months before, etc. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
          Cut from reception. Anarchyte (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Weird we go from talking about critical reception to talking about a platform's sales, then back to reception, and then back to sales. Should be rearranged.
      • Rearranged. Mistake from when I moved sales from the bottom to top of the section. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
    • The reception section seems to be missing overall impressions of the game, beyond the metascores; it also seems weird to end with "oh yeah reviewers compared this game to these other pieces of media" instead of dealing the the game's actual reception.
      • I can add the numerical ratings given by each reviewer, if this is what you mean. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
        • My thrust was that "hey this reminds of this thing" seems like something you would lead off a section, instead of ending the reception with it, and that while it has a part-by-part breakdown of the critical response to music, modes, etc., there's not really anything besides the meta score telling us how people thought about the game as a whole. There's some of it in the coop section, but I think it could be evinced further. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:08, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
          I've rearranged the section to start (after the first para) with the comparisons. By "game as a whole", do you mean something like Alex Navarro (Giant Bomb) proposed a similar viewpoint and held the opinion that some of the later levels turned into "tedious exercises in trial-and-error", however ultimately awarded the game a 4/5 rating and commended the rest of the gameplay. (see final para for how this currently reads)? Anarchyte (talk) 10:45, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
          • To use a recently-promoted example in Donkey Kong Country, where after the aggregate reviews you give general comments about the game as a whole before going into the specific sections as it does now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
            I've added a new paragraph at the top which mimics the Donkey Kong. article. Anarchyte (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Media:
    • Images seem appropriately sourced and licensed.
  • References:
    • Doesn't seem like There is currently no release date established and only a PC release has been confirmed. can be effectively cited to a news article dating to the initial news that's now several months old.
      • Nothing new has been posted. I've added an "As of March 2022" to the start of the sentence. Anarchyte (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
    • Spotchecks forthcoming.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this, David Fuchs. I should be able to get these resolved within the next couple of days. I'll strike as I go. Anarchyte (talk) 08:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Please don't strike my comments, as that makes it harder for me to check things off myself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
No worries. I've removed the strikes and I'll just comment underneath each dotpoint instead. I've left some comments above and I'll address the rest soon. Anarchyte (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, it's taking me a little bit longer to get around to this than I thought. I'll definitely have it done within another day. Anarchyte (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: I've left comments above. Thank you for your patience. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Were there any other issues you wanted addressed? Anarchyte (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to do another pass through the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Hey, any update on this? I think Gog wants this FAC to resolve itself soon. Anarchyte (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi David Fuchs, just checking to see if your oppose still stand? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Gog the Mild I've struck my oppose as I think my main issues have been addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator noteEdit

  • Nearly seven weeks in and no signs of a consensus to promote forming. Unless this changes over the next two to three days I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, was afraid of this. Similar problem happened in the previous nomination. How many additional supports would be required? Anarchyte (talk) 15:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Gog the Mild: could you please let me know what you still require from this and I will seek it out. Anarchyte (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    Looks like the article still needs image and source reviews, which can be requested at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests JOEBRO64 13:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    Nikkimaria conducted an image review at the top, which I assume still stands as nothing has changed in that regard. I'll request a source review. Anarchyte (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It needs a source review pass and a minimum of one further general support, ideally more. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I'll ask around. Thanks for the extra time. Anarchyte (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Will there be anything else required for this nomination once the outstanding spot-check is complete? Anarchyte (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Probably not. I will have a proper check as and if the spot check is signed off. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TheJoebro64Edit

Extended content

Marking my spot. Review should be up within the next few days. JOEBRO64 00:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's some initial comments:

  • "Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine is a 2013 stealth and action video game..." This is tautological. All stealth games are action games—stealth is a subgenre of action. I think you can remove "and action" from both the lede and the Gameplay section.
    • Most reviews explicitly mention "stealth", so I think it's best to include it. Anarchyte (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
      • I meant I think you should remove action, not stealth. Since stealth is the primary genre, and stealth is, by definition, a subgenre of action, "and action" isn't needed. JOEBRO64 15:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Ah, I misinterpreted the comment. I've changed it accordingly. Anarchyte (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "The campaign is offered in two modes: "Classic" and "Enhanced", with the latter being a more condensed version." I think this needs more clarification. I had to read the source to understand that "Classic" is the unmodified campaign and "Enhanced" was a shorter version released in an update. (I think it would help to note that Enhanced wasn't in the initial release and was added in an update.)
  • Regarding the two references in the plot, I'm guessing they're there because of the quotations, but I don't think they're necessary. Per WP:VG/PLOT, "Straightforward plot summary is assumed to be sourced to the game itself and thus does not require sources."
    • I'm fine removing ref16 (the Rat), but "a moral debt" might still need one: "If a plot summary includes a direct quote from the work, this must be cited using inline citations per WP:V." Anarchyte (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Cut the Rat citatiton. Anarchyte (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "... Microsoft Game Studios twice rejected the game with marketability concerns." I'm noting this part of the lede because I don't think it's made clear within the prose itself. It's mentioned that Microsoft rejected the game and Schatz tried to improve its marketability the second time he pitched it, but not that Microsoft rejected it because it wasn't marketable. I'd either spell this out in the development section or chop this from the lede.

I'll be back for more, this is just to get started. JOEBRO64 15:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks for those. I've addressed them above. Anarchyte (talk) 14:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Final round of comments:

  • I think the reception section, as it stands, is structured a bit weirdly. After the MC/awards/sales paragraph, you've got a summary paragraph, and then three paragraphs dedicated to specific points. I think it'd be better off if you had summative statements to start each paragraph, then get into the specifics. I think this is what David was referring to when he suggested structuring it more like Donkey Kong Country's. This is a pretty simple change; I just did this test edit to show off how it'd look.
    • Right, happy to make this change. Just want to clarify one thing beforehand: are you suggesting the second paragraph of Reception (The cooperative gamemode was highly praised...) be removed and have the summaries present in that paragraph prefixed to their relevant paragraphs? Anarchyte (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
      • More or less, basically just how I did it in my test edit. Once that's done, the only other change I'd make would be to relocate the comparisons to somewhere that makes more sense (once my comment below has been addressed). JOEBRO64 01:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Done. I've merged the paragraph into the rest of the prose. I attached the comparisons to the end of the soundtrack and changed the leading sentence to be more about the soundtrack/game comparisons than the soundtrack's reception. Anarchyte (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd make sure you have direct refs to back up the summative statements like "The coop was well received" and "The soundtrack was well received", as these are generalizations that could be challenged
    • If what I've said above is correct, this will be resolved at the same time as that. Anarchyte (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the comparisons to films/other games need a little clarification. Were they positive? Negative? It's not entirely clear
    • From how I interpreted the reviews, they're just neutral comparisons. Anarchyte (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
      • I don't really get the sense they're neutral from the reviews; DigitalSpy says the game is the closest thing to an Ocean's 11 game/interactive heist movie, and GamesRadar says it still manages to feel original despite the obvious influences. I think these comparisons need to be presented better—the section should clarify why it's being compared, and thus why it's meaningful reception. JOEBRO64 01:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Will adjust this shortly. Anarchyte (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Updated. The Swedish review also mentions Gauntlet, but I'm not sure which piece of media they're referring to so I've excluded it. Anarchyte (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • This is just personal preference, so if you don't want to make this change you don't have to, but I think the review box would be better off without the PC/Xbox division. In addition to thinking the normal, single-column one just looks better, platform differences are virtually indistinguishable for modern games. Most reviewers don't (and didn't in the case of Monaco) distinguish between the Xbox and PC versions. Just use a break to separate the MC scores in the style of Grand Theft Auto V#Re-release.
  • I'd say you have enough content for a separate "Release" section in between Development and Reception, using the last paragraph of Development and release and the sales information in the first paragraph of Reception.
    • I've split Development and release into two sections (Development, and Release) but I've not moved the sales information. I can't find an example of an article that has sales outside of reception.
      • It's my preference to group sales with release unless the sales are directly tied to the reception. It is kind of personal preference, though—if you don't agree, don't feel obligated. JOEBRO64 01:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Just for consistency with what I've seen, I'll leave sales where it is. Anarchyte (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

And that's it. Nice work JOEBRO64 14:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I'll have these done by the end of the day. Anarchyte (talk) 06:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi TheJoebro64, I've replied above. Most are resolved, just want some clarification on how you want the reception changed. Anarchyte (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I believe that's all done, TheJoebro64. Thanks for the review and your patience. Anarchyte (talk) 14:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. Nicely done. JOEBRO64 17:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Source review by NikkimariaEdit

spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere, eg the artists
    • They are taken from the game's credits, which have been duplicated here. How do you suggest I cite the credits? Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
      • You can cite them to the game itself, if the credits are provided there? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Good point. Will do.
  • Quotation marks nested inside quotation marks (eg in titles) should be converted to single quotes
    • Fixed the one instance I found. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • What makes Giant Bomb a high-quality reliable source? Gamereactor? GameSpot? GameFront?
    • Giant Bomb: the WP:VG/RS consensus is that it is reliable as long as the article cites a staff written publication and not the wiki. Alex Navarro seems to have a history publishing for reputable sources: LinkedIn.
      • I can't access that link - can you elaborate? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Gamereactor: cut. See below. Replaced with Kotaku.
    • GameSpot: owned by Red Ventures (same as Giant Bomb above). Previously owned by CBS Interactive. Considered by VG/RS to be reliable as long as it's not usergen. Tom Mc Shea has written for a range of publications: OpenCritic.
    • GameFront: cut. See below.
  • Why do some refs include publisher and others not?
    • I included a publisher whenever the source listed a publisher/owner other than themselves on their website. I just added one for Rock, Paper, Shotgun that I did miss. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, not a sourcing comment, but I noticed the Sequel section in particular would benefit from copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the source review. I've also reworded the sequel section as requested. Anarchyte (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy ping to Nikkimaria. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the replies. I've responded above. Anarchyte (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from PMCEdit

Spotchecks not done.

  • Usually work and publisher are only linked on first instance, not on repeat (Engadget & Yahoo are linked in ref 2 so don't need linked in ref 7, etc)
    • I've not seen this before. I've been filling in the publisher parameter whenever possible for sources for years. Though I'll note that quite a few VG FAs don't cite publishers at all, those that do seem to repeat them; e.g., Infinity Blade, God of War II, Super Mario World.
  • Ref 11: Destructoid is listed on WP:VG/RS as situational. Its usage here verges on game guide-y - I'm not sure that "Due to each character having different abilities and strengths, players are encouraged to consider the objective of the mission when selecting their character, as some may be more or less useful." is strictly encyclopedic.
    • Cut the citation to rely solely on PC Gamer. Reworded sentence. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 19: Thank you for including specific timestamps and quotes.
  • Ref 21: However I see no timestamps here. Why?
    • The reference uses the article's prose, not the video: "Among them, Peter Hollins [...], Tina Guo (the cellist from the Journey soundtrack) and Super Hexagon composer Chipzel". Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I really should have used names - what was ref 21 when I reviewed is now ref 20. It's the GDC Vault one. ♠PMC(talk) 05:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
        • No worries, I was tracking them as I went to make sure I was referring to the correct one, but I must have forgotten for this one. The entire GDC lecture is about using music to tell a story, and the summary says "the underlying philosophy for creating a musically meaningful experience was identical". I considered this sufficient enough to not warrant a timestamp at the time. Anarchyte (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
          Sure, works for me. ♠PMC(talk) 06:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 23 & 24: I'm going to assume there's no secondary source available for this. In that light, do you think it's significant enough to merit inclusion at the FA level?
    • The purpose of the paragraph was to highlight the remixes, not the release date. I don't mind whether it stays or goes. What do you think? Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Hm, actually, the Kotaku ref talks about the release on bandcamp so I'm fine to leave it.
  • Ref 28: Destructoid again. In this case it's being used to support a fact, which VGRS says is okay if the author can be established as reliable. So: how is Jordan Devore reliable at the FA level?
    • He is a founding member of Destructoid and is the editor-in-chief: LinkedIn. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Works for me
  • Ref 29 & 30: Is the primary source needed given that there's also a secondary source cited? Actually, the secondary source has inconclusive reliability on VGRS - is there nothing better in general?
    • On review, the Gamereactor source is useless. I've swapped it for Kotaku. This article was published on the date of release, but it does not explicitly state the release date, so let me know if you think this is enough to warrant cutting the primary source. I could not find anything that referenced Humble Games that wasn't primary. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
      Oh, that is annoying. Yeah, I couldn't find anything either. It's pertinent and factual so I don't see an issue with it. ♠PMC(talk) 06:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 34: EGMNow should be spelled out as Electronic Gaming Monthly I think, since EGMNow is just the URL of the website. It also doesn't need the publisher as the publisher is effectively the same as the work
  • Ref 38: This is an oddity, but I think that review typo'd the guy's name! Fairly certain it's this guy. We're allowed to fix typos, so I think we should correct the guy's name.
  • Ref 44 & 47: Destructoid again. Seems to me the award in question is more like a yearly best-of list. Can you justify the relevance as an award?
    • I don't really have a justification other than when I introduced that source VGRS listed Destructoid as reliable, so I considered the award to be relevant. Destructoid is a popular news outlet, so there is some relevance, but let me know if you think it should be cut. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
      • I think I'd be fine mentioning that Destructoid named it as such in the prose, but would avoid calling it an "award" per-se, and might take it out of the review box.
        • Adjusted accordingly. Anarchyte (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 56: GameFront is not listed at VGRS at all, and from our article on it, I'm struggling to see it as a high-quality reliable source.

I edit conflicted with Nikkamaria in starting this source review, but as our comments didn't seem to overlap much, I figured it was fine to carry on with mine as well. ♠PMC(talk) 03:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Thanks for taking the time to review. Hope everything's okay irl. I've left some replies above. Anarchyte (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Everything's good, fortunately :) Cats were acting weird and it seemed like it could've been serious, but turned out not to be. Anything I didn't reply to above is fine. ♠PMC(talk) 05:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Great to hear that everything's fine. I've replied above. Anarchyte (talk) 05:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
All comments resolved one way or another, happy to support. ♠PMC(talk) 06:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Blue Pumpkin PieEdit

I couldn't find too many issues. The only thing I might clarify is why the Nintendo Switch is called "the complete edition".Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's only called that because it contains all the extra content that wasn't available on launch for PC. I'll make a minor adjustment to the prose to note this (supported by the primary reference to eShop). Anarchyte (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I have now changed my vote to Support. On a side note: In my opinion, I don't think it's easy to read the Reception section with so many of the reviews starting with the name and sidelining the publication/website they represent. But if other editors so far don't see a problem with it, then I will chalk it up to personal preference.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Spot-check by Lazman321Edit

Currently in progress here. Lazman321 (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Comment as of this revision: resolved error with ref 8 by adding a Yahoo/Engadget source. Anarchyte (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment as of this revision: resolved Digital Spy star rating issue by replacing it with a numerical score. Anarchyte (talk) 06:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I am now finished with the spot-check. I did notice a few problems, but it wasn't too serious. If you address them, I will be happy to support. Lazman321 (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment as of this revision: @Lazman321: I have resolved all the remaining issues. I added a new WP:VG/RS supported source for the shotgun claim and changed any previously unsupported text. Regarding ref 26 (now 27), the article already says July 4. Thank you very much for the review. Anarchyte (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support based on spot check. I was referring to the in-text release date, but I corrected it. Otherwise, all concerns addressed. Great work. Lazman321 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Is there a reason for cite 1 being undated? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    No. I've added a date to both ref 1 and 16. Anarchyte (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

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