Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Resident Evil 2/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 Karanacs 23:28, 10 July 2011 [1].

Resident Evil 2[edit]

Nominator(s): Prime Blue (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After the previous nomination, the article underwent an extensive peer review by JimmyBlackwing, during which the prose was largely reworked to fulfill criterion 1a of the featured article criteria. I think that this addressed the concerns of those who opposed the last time, so I am giving Resident Evil 2 another shot at FAC...before the inevitable remake comes along. Prime Blue (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a quick comment, why use the European box art? From what I understand, predominant sales of the game were in the US and Japan. Maybe the US cover would be better suited. I will go through the prose momentarily.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone who knows the video game guidelines might need to correct me, but I was under the assumption that the box art used is that of the first release chronologically (or the first English language release chronologically). In this case it was released in NA (North America) then in JP (Japan) a week later, then PAL (Most of the rest of the English speaking world, including most of Western Europe and Australia) over four months later. The North American box art really should be used here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the guidelines of WikiProject Video games, cover arts do not follow chronological release orders but are meant to be identifiable to the reader. This is the reasoning I gave for the precedence of the European box art in this case. Prime Blue (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review - Prose are fairly good, however I have small fixes I find to better the articles grammar.
- is a 1998 survival horror video game originally released for the PlayStation. -> is a survival horror video game originally released for the PlayStation in 1998.
- its story -> plot, events
- "Zapping System", -> ,"
  - This is wrong, actually. MOS:LQ. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- puzzles -> for such a basic word, try using a synonym, since you already used it in the last sentence. Repetitious use of basic words can make the prose appear unprofessional
- Hideki Kamiya and produced by Shinji Mikami -> why not linked? Many other terms or people are linked in the infobox and still linked in lead. Whatever the decision, be consistent
- redesign introduced, that employs -> tense issues
  - This is only from the lead. I find the prose to be well executed, but can be bettered if basic fixes are made. Try and apply these type of fixes throughout the rest of the article. I'll have more soon.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:57, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As the European versions of Resident Evil 2 use the same cover art as the Japanese releases, this is the most identifiable one. Incidentally, the "1998" sentence was just changed before, so I guess this is more of a preference-based issue. Are you sure on changing "story" to plot or "events"? "Its plot takes place" sounds very strange, and events is already used in the same sentence. Usage of key words has been introduced in the peer review to correct the ambiguity that the old article versions suffered from. That being said, changed "puzzles" to "obstacles", although I am not quite satisfied with its vagueness. Figured readers were less likely going to check out biographical articles from the lead section, thus did not link Kamiya and Mikami. I think the "redesign" sentence is legit the way it is worded. The redesign introduced a presentation that is still supported by a soundtrack that still employs "desperation" as an underlying theme. Prime Blue (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - You are right that most of that is preference. I read through the rest of the article, and (I have played the game) and understood everything and find it to be written very well. You have earned my support.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 21:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your prose review and support. Prime Blue (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support as peer reviewer. It's, in my opinion, a comprehensive, neutral, nicely written and well-researched piece of work that should definitely be featured. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media mostly checks out (kudos for the detailed and accurate rationales on the screenshots) but the rationale on the sound file could do with a cleanup (a more explicit purpose of use, tied into the article text, as with the screenshots). J Milburn (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the cookie-cutter fair-use rationale and wrote a stronger one. Prime Blue (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cool, all legit according to the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I was happy with it last time, and it qualifies still WRT prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is fraught with Japanese text/letters, is it necessary? TGilmour (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I only noticed Japanese characters in the lead translation of the game's title. Are you referring to the characters used in the quote-refs? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, in the refs. They seem superfluous. TGilmour (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I included the Japanese and German quotes in accordance with WP:NONENG ("When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote"). Prime Blue (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Understood.

Support Definitely meets the criteria. TGilmour (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a source review or spotchecks yet? Karanacs (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1: page(s)?
Does Suleputer provide catalog numbers for album notes?
Ellipses shouldn't use square brackets unless the quote uses ellipses
You seem to be relying rather heavily on Resident Evil Archives
Ref 32: pages?
Ref 35: check formatting
There are a number of print sources missing page numbers, which are required for verifiability
Why are some of the "(in Japanese)" notations in a different colour?
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? What are the author's qualifications? Same for this and this. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source of ref 35 does not have page numbers. Worked off of scans for some other references – which did not specify the exact page numbers within the works (I guess some do not have page numbers either). Forgot catalog numbers for albums, added. Had no idea that added ellipses do not use square brackets on Wikipedia, changed. Usage of single sources might have seemed a little heavy because I had a habit of sourcing consecutive sentences with identical references – removed those now. Outside of a few design comments in the development section, Resident Evil Archives is used exclusively for plot-related information. Ref 35 formatting fixed. {{Cite video game}} used a different color for the language field, changed it. Sources of refs 73, 76, 113 and 137 are in the project's list of reliable sources. Thank you for your checks. Prime Blue (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have spotchecks for close paraphrasing and correct representation of sources been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, someone wanted to check it, but I guess he hasn't gotten to it yet. I requested a review on the project talk page. Prime Blue (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing spotchecks - checked most of the most-used online references; no close paraphrasing found. --Pres N 02:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article looks to be well researched and maintained to be a Featured Article. GamerPro64 22:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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