Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wipeout 2048/archive1

< 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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2017 [1].

Wipeout 2048 edit

Nominator(s): JAGUAR  12:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I got stalled on my previous nomination I have nominated this article in the mean time since I took steps to ensure it was FA-ready, or I hope so anyway! I believe that this article meets the well-written, well-researched and comprehensiveness aspects of the FA criteria. I think I overdone the reception section slightly but it has since been condensed and restructured to read as cohesive prose. I also think its reception is important because this game was a PlayStation Vita launch title and "tested the waters" of the console so to speak. Another fun fact is that the game acted as a testbed for the console and had an influence in its design. Sources on development weren't plentiful, but I'm confident I squeezed enough out of the reliable sources.

I'd like to make the Wipeout series a Featured Topic. All of the instalments are currently GAs, but if all goes well this should be the first of five—can't promise anything! JAGUAR  12:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on images:
  • File:Wipeout 2048 Boxart.jpg: The non-free use rationale is fairly basic; I think some more stuff can be added. And the rationale for the other page the file isn't used on removed.
  • Oops, I completely blanked that. I've added the proper video game rationale JAGUAR  21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Wipeout 2048 gameplay.jpg: This file is being used to illustrate the gameplay not the game which is different. The current rationale would be appropriate if the file was used in the infobox header.
  • I've rephrased the rationale somewhat to make it clear that the image illustrates the gameplay of the game itself JAGUAR  21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifying the fact that the game influenced the design of the console itself can be found in this source. Or did you mean verifying that the console pictured is the first model?
Good alt text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Jo-Jo Eumerus! I think I should have cleared everything up, although I'm not that good with images. I wasn't too sure about the image of the PlayStation Vita—did you mean verifying the game's influence over the console or the fact that it was the first model in the picture? JAGUAR  21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: Please see the FAC instructions about when a nomination is archived. "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." My inclination is to remove this, but I don't recall you doing this before so would be prepared to grant an exemption this once. However, as this is the second time this has happened in a few days, I'm also inclined to be less willing to bend the rules in future. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: I'm so sorry, I was aware of this rule but for some reason I always thought it only applied to nominating the same article in the space of two weeks, not a different article. I always had that in my mind ever since my FAC failed back in 2012. I would be fine if you decide to remove this, but it won't happen again. JAGUAR  17:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Tintor2
  • Why aren't the other games from the franchise linked in the lead?
  • The only other game I'm seeing in the lead is Wipeout HD, which is already linked? Unless I'm missing something. JAGUAR  22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about starting the article with futuristic considering it's not a genre and instead something like "racing game set in the future"
  • Removed "futuristic" and made it more specific that the game is set in the year 2048. JAGUAR  22:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section seems quite long. How about trimming or make a smaller section for one aspect of critcism like Final Fantasy XIII#Linearity?
  • That's a very good idea! Never thought of that before. I did condense and trim and section as much as I could, but I'm not sure if trimming anymore would sacrifice its balance. I think its reception is important given the fact that it was a Vita launch title and it also gained more-than-usual limelight because of this. Let me know how it looks now? If it's still too long, I would try merging some sentences. JAGUAR  14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there information about the sales?
  • It is covered on VGChartz, but sadly this is not a reliable source. However, I did find a mention of the game being at the 11th spot in the UK all-format chart, so I've mentioned that. I think it's better than nothing! JAGUAR  14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some references needing archives like reference 20 "Hindman, Heath (14 February 2012). "WipEout 2048 review". Game Revolution. AtomicOnline. Retrieved 3 January 2017." It is needed for the source review.
  • Archived all with the exception of three which couldn't be archived. JAGUAR  15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chris Roberts or other staff members could be in the infobox as director, designer, etc.
  • Good catch, added. JAGUAR  14:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good work. I'll support it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you so much for the review, Tintor2! Just finished archiving. Sorry for the delay in getting back to this. JAGUAR  15:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aoba47
  • I think that the infobox image requires an ALT description. And I would think that the ALT description for the screenshot should be a little more descriptive than "Game screenshot".
  • I've given better alt descriptions for all images, as well as the infobox image. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something about this sentence reads a little awkwardly to me (Set primarily in the year 2048, it takes place earlier in the Wipeout timeline than previous games and acts as a prequel); I think it is because I find it a little repetitious. The parts about the game taking "place earlier in the Wipeout timeline" and it acting "as a prequel" seems to conveying the same information in two different ways in the same sentence. You could cut this sentence down by saying: "Set primarily in the year 2048, it acts as a prequel to the first installment in the Wipeout series" or something along those lines.
  • Thanks, I agree that it does sound repetitious. I went with your suggestion with a minor tweak. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, you give a good breakdown of the different car types, but do you have any information on the "prototype" car/ship. You include information on speed ships, agility ships, fighters, but not anything specifically for the prototype.
  • Sadly the source says "The last class of ship is the Prototype Ship, but I’m not going to tell you anything about those", and I was like, "oh, OK then". I have never played this game before so I wouldn't know, but I'll keep looking for a source which can shed some light on this. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me. I just wanted to confirm this with you. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the phrase "destroy other races", I assume you mean "racers" and not "races" (unless this game gets real dark and existential lol).
  • Oops. Well spotted typo! That would have made the game unique. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick question about "Zone mode"; are the racers kept at a high speed for the entire race, or are they pushed to a high speed at the start, but can still be slowed down to more "normal" levels by obstacles or player interactions (weapons, etc.)?
  • All racers are kept at extreme speeds the whole time, and it continuously accelerates. The player has no control over the acceleration—I've split and expanded the sentence to make it clearer. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense to me. I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to "time trial" may be beneficial, though I am surprised that the article has not been expanded to include information on time trials in the context of video games. I am only suggesting it as it may be helpful for an unfamiliar reader.
  • The time trial article does include "a similar race against the clock or time attack is often part of racing video games", which is better than nothing. I've linked it for unfamiliar readers. Even so, it is always the same concept. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is more of a clarification question, but is there anything noteworthy to add about the DLC? Did any publications provide any details on the types of new tracks or ships added?
  • I've added a little bit more to the DLC section, but it turns out that there are only two DLCs. Both of which just add twelve ships and twelve tracks from Wipeout HD to Wipeout 2048. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this is a clarification question, and I am pretty sure I know the answer, but I just want to make sure. I am assuming there is very little in the way of plot or character/racer background and development in this game (which is common for a racing game), but I just wanted to confirm this with you.
  • There is absolutely no plot or narrative with any Wipeout game LOL. It's funny that all of the video game FAs I've bought up have had no narratives. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It happens; I didn't even notice until you pointed it out lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love using block quotes, but I am not entirely certain that the block quote at the beginning of the "Conception" subsection is entirely necessary or adds much to the actual article or reader's understanding of the material. I can see the quote being put into the actual text (with a direct quote or paraphrasing) rather than sectioning it off (in fact, the second sentence of the subsection seems to be repeating similar information to the block quote).
  • You're right, it doesn't add anything unique to the section. I wanted to include it because I thought it emphasised an important point, but I know realise that it repeats information. I've removed the quote box. I tried to find another quote to use but it all repeats the same information in the article. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link "launch title" twice in the article.
  • Make sure the references are put in numerical order (for instance, in the last paragraph of the "Reception" section, reference 26 should be put before reference 27). Same thing in the beginning of the "Criticism of loading times" subsection.
  • All should be in order now. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wonderful work with this article. It has been a rather long time since I have played a racing game, so this article definitely made me want to play one lol. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, Aoba47! I really appreciate it. I've addressed all of your points. The Wipeout series are the only racing games I'll ever play, and it's been a pleasure to get all of them to GA. JAGUAR  17:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments, and I greatly enjoyed working with you. Good luck with your future projects, and I look forward to working with you further in the future. I support it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by ProtoDrake

In progress. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: Right, here's my review.

  • US PlayStation external link needs updating
  • Refs 2-4, 6-9, 13-16, 26, 32, 34, 36. — these references need bringing in line with the prevalent "|work=|publisher=" citation format.
  • Replaced all website fields with the "|work=" format. JAGUAR  17:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 36. — link to site articles on Wikipedia.
  • Ref 2 doesn't work as it stands. The interview has been uploaded by GameSpot through their YouTube channel, so it can be replaced.
  • Thanks, I've replaced this with the YouTube link. Per WP:YOUTUBE it should be alright as it comes directly from GameSpot's official channel. JAGUAR  17:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info from sources checks out.
  • Checklinks shows all links are okay.
  • As many links as possible should be archived.
  • Archived all which were possible. JAGUAR  17:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what stood out. Once all the issues have been sorted out, I'll give the article another lookover and verdict. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review, ProtoDrake! I really appreciate it. I've addressed all the points. JAGUAR  17:30, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: That takes care of my concerns. I'll give this article a Pass on source review. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I have taken care of all prose, source and image reviews—would there be anything else left outstanding? Thanks. JAGUAR  19:28, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarastro1: sorry for the extra ping—do you think this needs an extra set of eyes or another review etc? It looks like I'll be away from Wikipedia entirely in June so I'd like to give this my full attention before then. JAGUAR  12:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I'm only seeing two supports here, and I think we need more review before we can think about promoting. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anarchyte
  • The game, the ninth instalment of the Wipeout series, was the last developed by Studio Liverpool before its August 2012 closure. Not sure about this. I don't like how it goes "the game, the ninth". Seems clunky.
  • Condensed into one sentence. JAGUAR  14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Developed with the PlayStation Vita, it was a testbed for the console. change to It was used as a testbed for the PlayStation Vita.
  • Changed to "The game was designed as a testbed for the then-upcoming PlayStation Vita" if that's OK. JAGUAR  14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • During development, Studio Liverpool staff sent feedback to Sony about how the game would play on the new console and some said that they had influenced the Vita's design. This sentence is a mouthful. Any way to reword it or shorten it?
  • I've tried shortening it slightly. JAGUAR  14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • both, not originally conceived by Sony, eventually made it onto the console. Your choice, but would saying "both ideas" instead of just "both" sound better?
  • Critics agreed that its graphics and visuals showcased the PlayStation Vita Showcased what from the PSV? The graphics? The specs? I've also made a minor change here, if you don't like it feel free to undo it.
  • The sources affirm that the game had showcased its "prowess", so I've added "power" here. JAGUAR  14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The single-player game progresses through the first three years of the AGRC (Anti-Gravity Racing Championships): 2048, 2049 and 2050. Would this be better as The single-player game progresses through the first three years, 2048, 2049, and 2050, of the AGRC (Anti-Gravity Racing Championships. Your choice. Minor nitpick.
  • Thanks, I think it's sounds better like this. Added. JAGUAR  14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Sony Studio Liverpool known as Psygnosis at any time during development?
  • That's a good point. They weren't known as Psygnosis during development, but I didn't want readers to confuse them with a new studio as Wipeout was always their creation. Removed. JAGUAR  14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if they were known as that when they made the previous games, how about x, known as y during the development of the previous games... (on mobile, sorry about the shorthand ). This is a minor issue so I'm willing to support now. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that sounds good. Added. JAGUAR  16:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From my first read-over, the rest seems fine. I'll support when these are fixed if I don't find any more issues. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: thank you for the comments! I've addressed all of the above. Thankfully this article was quite well refined before I nominated it, unlike my previous nomination. JAGUAR  14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'm willing to support now, though I've left a comment above that might interest you. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I was looking at this with a view to promotion but ended up copy-editing and so I'm better recusing here. Just a few queries, then I'm happy to support this. If these are addressed before I return, I have no problems with this from a prose viewpoint. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is the ninth instalment of the Wipeout series and was the last developed by Studio Liverpool before its August 2012 closure": The last instalment of Wipeout produced by them? Or the last game produced by them in total? If we don't know, or if there haven't been any more Wipeouts since, this seems a little odd to say, particularly in the lead.
  • This was the very last game made by Studio Liverpool before their closure. It was also thought to be the final Wipeout game until a surprise announcement of another one a few weeks ago, so in that respect I think this sentence feels a bit outdated. I've tweaked it so it should be clearer that it was Studio Liverpool's last game. JAGUAR  21:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Studio Liverpool technical director Stuart Lovegrove, the game was developed in parallel with the PlayStation Vita and was a testbed for the console": It either was or it wasn't, I don't think we need the "according to" here.
  • "said that Sony Computer Entertainment involved the Liverpool studio early in the development of the PlayStation Vita and they had a "fairly good idea" of the console's capability." Who is "they" here? It could be either Sony or Studio Liverpool.
  • I removed "they" from the sentence. I think the reader would know that Roberts had a fairly good idea of the console's capability as the sentence starts with him. I could rephrase this again if you disagree. JAGUAR  21:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the influence of Studio Liverpool on the console design, it would be nice to have corroboration from someone other than Eggleton, but I think we handle this well and go as far as the sources allow.
  • I've added a little bit of reflection from Lovegrove and Roberts regarding the Vita, but the interview mainly comprised of technical mumbo jumbo and is difficult to decipher for the laymen, including me admittedly. I like to think that I've made the most out of it, but it's always nice to keep things balanced. JAGUAR  21:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we be clear in the main body when Studio Liverpool closed? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a new sentence. JAGUAR  21:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments and copyedits, Sarastro1—I really appreciate it! I've addressed all of the above. JAGUAR  21:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A nicely written article, and quite an easy read. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2017 (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/Wipeout_2048/archive1&oldid=1143742765"