Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

< 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 promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:39, 20 January 2009 [1].


Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

edit
Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)

Perhaps the most controversial video game in recent times. It touches on all aspects of the game including development, reception and its legacy; I've done a copyedit and it's gone through a peer review, so I believe all major issues have been ironed out. I'm posting a defense of certain sources on the talk page of this FAC to keep things short.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I don't know video games, so you'll have to help me out here.

  • File:Super-columbine-massacre.png - Instead of saying "some of the objectionable images commented upon in the press", could you spell out what was objectionable about the images in the fair use rationale?
  • File:Columbine-battle-screen.png - The purpose of this fair use rationale is a bit confusing to me. It states: "To illustrate the games' battle system, a major component of the game, the turn-based action, and "enemies"; to display graphics cribbed from news reports, part of the developer's research into the events of the shootings, which informed the game." - What does "battle system" mean? What does "turn-based action" mean? Also, I would suggest adding a phrase about the 16-bit video-game look - that would strengthen the rationale. Awadewit (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review; looking back it was kinda awkward so I've revised the FUR so they are hopefully more clear. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked a bit more on the "purposes of use". Please check to make sure everything still makes sense. Awadewit (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rationales look fine, thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All fair use rationales are sufficient and all images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the talk for the Kotaku and Destructoid rationales; as for Joystiq, they are once again using the creator's words (interview); Free Talk Live is a national radio program airing in forty-something markets that interviewed the creator. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with interviews is that we need to know that the publisher of the interview is reliable also, so that we know that the interview has been published correctly, without bias/errors. Also, I need to be sure that the video clips aren't copyright violations. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Orland of Joystiq also contributes to GameDaily, and is an occasional guest on NPR[2], so I think that should cover the Joystiq ref. I'll look into the destructoid author. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I wasn't able to find anything for Destructoid or the individual author so I've removed the ref. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The page meets FA criteria. It is a very interesting article about a game I never heard of. How shocking at first to think that someone could make a game out of such a horrible event but this article is not a promo for the game nor a critique, it is just placing all the facts in context. It is very well done, I thought it might be a little too detailed about the controversy but considering the subject matter, it is justified. I did not know we could use podcasts for references but since Ealdgyth checked them, I am fine with them too. NancyHeise talk 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's a panel by a reputable group (Denver Film Society), it just happened to be in podcast form as a convenience link. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that, the dab tool wasn't working when I nominated; they are now fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support (Full disclosure: I was a participant in the article's WP:VG peer review)
    • There seem to be a mish-mash of date styles in the references, with ISO style dates intermixed with "day month year", often in the same note. See note 36 of Super_Columbine_Massacre_RPG!&oldid=262030066 the current version for an example. (I'm aware that most of this was probably brought on by changes to the citation templates.)
    • In the "References" section, several of the works cited have multiple links to their corresponding Wikipedia article, like Ars Technica (and shouldn't that title be in italics?) and The New York Times. I'd recommend liking to the WP article once.
    • In the "Development" section, the image is placed in contravention of MOS:IMAGE, which recommends not placing an image directly under a heading.
    • I have not reviewed the prose or content in this incarnation, but had no objections at the peer review.
  • — Bellhalla (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In response; yes, the difference in date styles is due to a mixed use of cite web and cite news. I've tried to get people at both templates to just pick one style, but so far have gotten nowhere. Af for the refs, as I assume people aren't going to click on the first ref they see, it makes sense to wikilink all the publishers; Ars Technica is a website, not a print publication, so it's not italics. Finally, MOS:IMAGE only prohibits left-aligned images under level three headings, and "Development" is level two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In both {{Cite web}} and {{cite news}} the date field will accept a non ISO-style date. And each template will also accept the parameters accessyear and either accessdaymonth or accessmonthday (depending on the preferred date style) to avoid the ISO-style dates. I have struck the image comment; the MOS:IMAGE section that addressed the issue previously only specified "secondary headings". — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Guyinblack25

The article looks good; it's well written, properly sourced, and comprehensive. I noticed a few prose issues that I think should be addressed.

  • Maybe link "perdition" to Hell in Christian beliefs. This was a term I wasn't familiar with, and I'm sure some others aren't either.
  • There was some repetition here and there. Not a big deal, but something I think should be avoided.
    • The first two sentences in the second lead paragraph both start with "Ledonne".
    • The second and third sentences in the last lead paragraph both start with "The game's".
    • "Battle" is used every sentence in the second gameplay paragraph. Maybe switch out the second with "combat". I think it'll make that sentence sound less awkward too.
  • I'm not certain, but should a colon be used instead of a semicolon? "Battle has two options;"
  • I mentioned before that I think the plot should be before the gameplay. I still think the plot is a bigger component than the gameplay, and should be first. But if others don't take issue with this, then I see no reason to either.

Other than the list above, the article looks good and I don't see any major issues. I'll check back in later. Good job Herr Fuchs. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I've fixed all the above except the plot; if others find that the article is improved by moving it up, I'll do it, but right now I like it where it is (I also don't want to give the impression that it's all true events, even though there was significant research going into it; that's why I just drop a quick introduction of who/what/where in gameplay.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Assuming the minor issue with the plot and gameplay sections is not raised, then I see no reason to withhold support (even if it is raised I'd probably only switch to neutral or weak support). The article is well sourced with reliable sources, well written, comprehensive, and the image usage looks good. Another good article David. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Support. I can't find anything that needs fixing. :) - Mgm|(talk) 12:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There are some serious POV issues here, as the article's overall tone is clearly supportive of the game. Examples:
    • "Initial reception of Super Columbine Massacre was largely reactionary..." - the use of the word "reactionary" appears calculated to discredit that initial reaction.
    • "The game was largely condemned by the press, including those who never played the game." - the addition of "including those who never played the game" appears, again, designed to trivialize the condemnation.
    • "The most positive reviews of Super Columbine Massacre came from critics who recognized Ledonne's intended message." - This implies that less positive reviews were from people who failed to recognize this intended message.
    • "Thompson also noted the game's subtlety..." - the use of the uncritical verb "to note" takes it as a given that the game is subtle.
    • There are two extended block quotes from the game's defenders, but nowhere near similar prominence given to its detractors.

These are just examples; there's plenty more bias in there, and I'm surprised that nobody as taken umbrage with it before this. Looking it over I also see some issues with prose (one example is in the second example of bias I cited, in which the word "game" is unnecessarily repeated) but in my view these are less fundamental than the POV stuff. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • In response. For the first bullet, "reactionary" is the word that was used; I have put an express citation after the word, it is not any sort of "calculation" on my part. Secondly, the fact that many who complained about the game in the press never played it (or the families who were interviewed about what they thought about it) is extremely relevant; to leave that out would be a detriment to understanding. It's quite simple: many reviewers didn't give the game a fair shake, and this is part of the reason for the inclusion of the first block quote. For the third bullet, I changed "recognized" to "accepted" to make it more even. For "Thompson also noted the game's subtlety...", what verb do you suggest I replace it with?
  • Finally, I take issue with the suggestion that the blockquotes are unbalanced. The reason there are the long quotes is A) a large part of Ledonne's experience with the game has been defending his artistic statement, and it would be remiss to leave out the creator's own words and defense of his game. Secondly, there's just not as much of good long-form passages to quote from detractors, who are quoted at least six times earlier and afterwards, in varying degrees. Dugan's comments are included because they sum up the general "supportive" sentiment among the gaming press at large who felt that the video game was been unfairly shafted by the mainstream media, as well as offering one example of how it was considered a work of art. Also, I fixed "the game" example you cited. In short I do not feel that the article is overly supportive; as is mentioned, even Ledonne's biggest supporters took issue with what they considered trivializing elements. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Noting that I have left a note for Sarcastic at his talk page. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I think the change from "recognized" to "accepted" was an excellent one. As for the blockquotes, I still have some concerns about them, but I can live with your explanation. Instead of "noted the game's subtlety", I'd suggest something along the lines of "credited the game with subtlety" or "called the game subtle". Regarding the other points: "reactionary" is indeed the verb that was used by the source, but the source is itself highly POV (it being titled "Soapbox" and all). That a subjective statement is portrayed as fact in an editorial does not make it appropriate for portrayal as fact in a Wikipedia article, even if the source is a reliable one. As for the "including those who have never played the game", we don't expect journalists to have firsthand experience of what they're reporting on. We don't say "Bob the Politician's actions were condemned by the the press, including those who had never served in Congress" or "Jim the Hockey Player was portrayed as a destabilizing dressing room influence in the press, including those who had never been professional hockey players". Stating it outright looks like an attempt to undermine the credibility of the commentators. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-reading things, I have to agree with Sarcastic about the "reactionary" and "never played" statements. I think the statements should be removed from their current locations (first sentences of the first and second reaction paragraphs). However, I don't think it would be inappropriate to include them as commentary of the reviewers. Like Ben Kuchera's comment on those that never played the game. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • I've removed the reactionary bit as I understand your point and redid the "subtle" part. But I'm still unconvinced about removing the comment about gameplay. The politician analogy isn't really comparable, because for video game reviews it's a general assumption that people have actually played the game; that's different, of course, from journalists who were simply reporting the controversy and quotes from the family, etc. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the "reactionary" bit could added back in, but as part of someone's commentary of the reaction. Same thing with the "never played" part, if a reviewer felt the initial reviewers never played it, you could add it in as their words.
    But how do you prove those people never played it? I remember reading about some of the initial reception when it first happened and agreed with it at first. After more reading, I learned that there was more to the game and figured those guys never played it and jumped to conclusions. But, even if that's right, I have nothing to back it up because it's just my assumption.
    Given the controversy of this topic, I think it's best to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability very closely to ensure the article's high quality. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • My specific concerns have been essentially addressed. I'm still not sure that this is FA-level, but my oppose can be considered struck for the time being. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A well written article about a controversial game. It manages to be neutral and covers a broad swath of information in the coverage. --Pstanton 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)
  • Support - Well-written and comprehensive as far as I can tell. I've never heard of this game, but I found the article very interesting, and I learned quite a bit from it. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:09, 19 January 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/Super_Columbine_Massacre_RPG!&oldid=1088204372"