Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Guardian Legend/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:55, 15 August 2009 [1].

---

The Guardian Legend

Nominator(s): AnOddName, Rg998, 闇甦兄, MuZemike 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/The Guardian Legend/archive1
• Featured article candidates/The Guardian Legend/archive2

This is our second attempt to bring this article about a rather obscure NES game to FA. Throughout the past six months since the last FAC, we have made the following improvements to the article:

• Reduction from three to two paragraphs in the lead to make it more succinct and to the point.
• Combination of sections to provide more consistent section lengths.
• Fair-use rationales in the images were greatly strengthened with alt text added to all of them per the new corresponding guidelines.
• Addition of articles in the Russian and Simple English Wikipedias.
• Addition of quotes in Wikiquote.
• Any and all disambiguation issues have been addressed.

The article fully utilizes all available sources from both web and print, and they should all be considered the most reliable of sources for use in these articles. It has already gone through three peer reviews and a successful GAN, and it has been designated as an A-Class article by WikiProject Video games. We think that this is a good enough quality of an article to be designated as a Featured Article. We will be open to any commentary and shortcomings that we may have overlooked in the article. MuZemike 18:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, 1a and 3:
  • The prose has some issue not so much with grammatical issues as much as clunky writing that makes it hard to wade through, as well as accessibility issues; if I were a non-gamer, I would be confused as to the gameplay by the second sentence. It needs to be written for a slower audience.
  • In terms of repetitious language and such, the "in addition..." stacked at the end need to go, and there's a few other issues. I'm not going to point them all out since the gameplay rewrite is more important right now.
  • "The game has since received both praise and criticism for its innovative multiple-genre format"—who says it was innovative? Comes off as a little biased.
  • I'm willing to let the two screenshots of gameplay fly, as there's significant commentary on the genre format and its novel enough that it's perhaps warranted. I'm less sure about the two box art images. The extent of the commentary for the File:Guardic Gaiden artwork by Naoyuki Kato.jpg is that it was drawn by some dude and depicts "a female cyborg"; I don't think that it meets the significant/detriment clauses of WP:NFCC.
  • Source spot checks pending. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I removed the Kato image [2]. I'll try to address the Gameplay section later on today. MuZemike 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I also removed the word "innovative" above [3]. I do agree that it came off as a little WP:WEASELish. MuZemike 18:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The alt text contains several phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, or which repeat info in the captions. These phrases need to be removed or reworded as per WP:ALT #What not to specify. Problematic phrases include "the Labyrinth" "(top-down perspective mode)", "where the player is firing at barriers and enemies with a gun", "the Dungeon", "(the shoot 'em up mode)", "where the player dodges projectiles from the area's boss", "The boxart used in the Japanese version of the game features a more realistic drawing of the game's protagonist". Eubulides (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I already made some changes to the alt text [4] and [5] right after I submitted this FAC. How does it look? MuZemike 15:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Better, thanks. Remaining problematic phrases include "fires" (can't tell from the image that it's being fired), "bullets" (can't tell from the image that it's bullets), "barriers", "enemies", "dodges", "enemy boss", "projectiles", "drawing" (that's a drawing? doesn't look like one to me), "game's", "protagonist". One other thing: the protagonist is in front of the background, not "behind". Eubulides (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is a decent effort to bring a more obscure NES game to light, but it just is not comprehensive with its lack of development history and lack of sales data. I realize this is information that is most likely impossible to get ahold of in the currently available sources, but that is not an acceptable excuse for failing to meet an FA requirement. I recognize the effort that went into this, but some topics have just not been studied enough to support FA status. Indrian (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Then maybe someone should have let us know about this in the previous FAC so we wouldn't have wasted anyone's time with this second one. We withdraw. MuZemike 06:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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