Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Iridion 3D

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 18:43, 15 May 2007.

[edit] Iridion 3D

Yes, its a short article about a game that wasn't really a hit, but that doesn't mean it can't be FA! Frankly there isn't much out there about the game and it had no real plot, so this is about as comprehensive as it will ever be. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 13:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sure, it does have some chance of passing, length isn't a defining factor. But each of the sections could surely be expanded (example: under Enemies it says The player encounters more than fifteen enemies over the course of the game, not counting the level bosses. One could go into detail, couldn't they?), and new ones could be added (are there Easter eggs? game released for other platforms? why wasn't it successful?). Other than that - seems nicely referenced, a definite GA, but if more than that - can't tell. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the reception would demonstrate why it wasn't successful; I added a little for enemies; and there aren't any easter eggs, it was never released for another platform. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 16:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Right you are. I'll take a look later, right now I'm somewhat reluctant to support, pending other comments. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

After a quick run-through I'm inclined to support it weakly. I'm sorry my comment is not long, but I've got a bunch of other things on my mind. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 08:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comments For the most part, it looks good. A few issues cropped up in the pass through I did of the article:
  • What was the game rated by the ESRB? How about PEGI and the Australian OFCL?
  • Graphics should probably be rolled into an section on the game's development, though I don't know how easily you could find stuff. Most FA-class articles for games include a development section. A cursory look revealed a preview on Gamespot which indicated there were some high hopes for the game... you might want to include that as well.
  • The Plot section seems a little thin. I know this is a shooter, but surely it should get more than four sentences. Have you covered each of the levels the player visits from a plot perspective in the plot summary?
• Assuming those three items are handled, this has my support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 17:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Expanded the plot, added the rating. Unfortunately there isn't much for development- just not that an important game to garner pre-release attention. I already have the gamespot preview under 'Reception'. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 19:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then. This FA has my support. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Object

• Needs copy editing — Without diving into the actual structure of the prose, I see "Iridion 3D", "Iridion 3d", and "Iridion 3-D". Also, "Game Boy Advance" and "Gameboy Advance", as well as inconsistent "3D" and "3-D" usage.

• I believe I've standardized the usage. I agree it needs a copyedit however. CloudNine 19:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Multiple bad links — There's a link that leads to a disambiguation page, links to the plural instead of singular form of a word, and links to incorrect articles. For example, you have 2-D with a plain link, which redirects to Dimension. Instead, you should point to 2D computer graphics. You also link to Starfox, the Marvel superhero, when I believe you mean to link to Star Fox (video game). Basic errors like these first two points indicate that the article needs to go to peer review.

• Fixed all wikilinks. CloudNine 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• The article starts "Iridion 3D is a 3D shooter game...", but the Graphics section says "Iridion 3d uses solely 2-D graphics...".

• Clarified. CloudNine 19:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Insufficient lead.

I added a litte, but I think its perfectly fine. It explains what it is, the reception, what its about, etc. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this article warrants a two paragraph lead. The lead should also mention the release dates. Pagrashtak 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Is there really nothing to be found for a Development section? This is a major part of video game articles.

You can look yourself. I went scrounging and came up with a few lines, but if you'll look at most *portable* video game articles, you'll find that not much is said for development. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I did a little searching and found out that Shin'en was working on an Iridion title for the Game Boy Color, but canceled it to focus on the GBA game. I also found some technical information and early plot information for the canceled game. I think there's definitely some material to be added under Development. Pagrashtak 23:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Throw me a bone and give me the link? ;) Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I found what you were talking about, and added it in, as well as expanding the lead somewhat. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pagrashtak 20:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's clear that you've been putting work into this. I've skimmed it and it looks better, so I'm striking my objection for now. The user-written FAQ needs to be removed as a reference; it's not a reliable source. The lead could use a little more referencing, such as "While praised for its intensive graphics and rich sound, the game was panned by critics and gamers alike for repetitive gameplay." This most likely involves copying a reference from the article body, although the "gamer" comment may not be covered. I'll try to give it a proper read tomorrow. Pagrashtak 03:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - The reception section could do with better sources. In terms of influence and readership, 2001 was not the year of Gamespot or All Game Guide. It's like a pop music article ignoring NME and Rolling Stone over the likes of All Music Guide. You'll be able to source some reviews through WP:CVG/M. User:X201 should have the Edge review from Issue 100 (it scored 6/10). Game Rankings suggests that the EGM review was published in 2003, which is weird, but User:Thunderbrand has all the EGM issues from 2001 - 2003 either, so that can't be hard to source if they did indeed review it. - hahnchen 22:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Kay, I'll look at adding more (prominent) sources. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, getting the EGM review is out of the question as TB is gone, but I added in the Edge review. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you just tidy the reception section up a bit, and give it some more flow. It just reads like a list of quotes, I don't know why for example, it's been split into two paragraphs when their tone, pacing and subject are largely the same. It might be worth emailing Thunderbrand for EGM, it's not like you're going to lose anything. - hahnchen 17:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and it'd be good to get some indication of sales figures. It's a relatively unknown game and it didn't get great reviews, but you never know, they might be floating around. - hahnchen 17:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You can check the reception section now. I removed most of the scores and put them to the side, reorganized/condensed the comments, and added some more stuff. As for the sales figures, I'm hitting brick walls. I'll continue looking, but finding individual game's sales are harder then I thought. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Image captions including, but not limited to, "In-game screenshot of Iridion 3d", suggest that the images are being used solely for decorative purposes and not for critical commentary. Are the particular game screenshots notable in any way? What commentary, previously published in reliable sources, can be made about them? In general, what strong reason suggests that we need to use these image? --Iamunknown 08:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I can't say I'm exactly an expert at video game articles (or what they should be, anyhow) but this one looks solid, if rather short. The only considerations I had looked to have already been addressed. Drew's Friend 21:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Object—1a. The top provides ample evidence that a copy-edit of the whole text is required to reach a "professional" standard of writing. Don't just correct these examples.
  • "the game was panned by critics and gamers alike"—"Panned" is a colloquial reference to the pan, as in the toilet. Replace with something encyclopedic. "Alike" is a tired cliche; remove it.
  • "its release was highly anticipated for a handheld title"—no, "keenly anticipated". This clause is ambiguous, anyway.
  • "Iridion was released in North America on 29 May 2001, and subsequently in Europe on 21 September 2001."—Which word is redundant?
  • " The game ultimately performed disappointingly." What, initially it performed well, and somehow performed poorly after months?
  • Next para is good. Then "Iridion 3D allows the player to boost their weapon power"—why not pluralise to match the grammatical number: "allows players".
  • "If the player's ship is destroyed, the power level of the weapon is reduced by one, but you cannot be forced back to a previous weapon." Sudden change to second person.
  • "Each weapon has its own advantages and disadvantages." Remove the two redundant words. Tony 01:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I've given the article an extensive copyedit and I believe I've handled most of the awkwardly phrased sentences. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Issues regarding 1a:
  • Influenced by the Commodore 64 game Uridium, Iridion features a single starship which waging war against the alien Iridion. Sentence is grammatically incorrect.
  • Iridion was released in North America on May 29, 2001 and in Europe on September 21, 2001 and performed disappointingly. Don't include more than one "and". Consider splitting the sentence, e.g. The game received mixed reviews. While reviewers praised... (don't actually use my example in the article). This would also solve my second problem with this sentence: the use of disappointingly.
  • The player encounters more than fifteen enemies... Try replacing "more than" with "over".
  • <ost bosses have weapons... <ost? I'm assuming you meant "most".
  • ...and level environments feature interesting changes... The use of "interesting" seems icky to me. How do you define "interesting". I don't find the changes from day to night interesting.
  • The developers made the levels look 3D by looping the background textures, making it a fairly graphically intensive game for the Game Boy Advance. "levels look 3d" sounds crude to me. Also, "fairly" seems like a letdown.
  • ...utilize the GAX Sound Engine,[16] which allowed realtime... You mean it doesn't allow it now?
  • Iridion 3D was recieved poorly by critics... One of, I think, the most common mistakes, "recieved" should be spelt "received".

Contrary to your statement above, I've found a few instances where the sentences don't convey the intended meaning. Might I suggest, if you haven't done so already, that you read Tony's (if I may say) excellent guides to improvement of writing and editing. The links at the bottom of the featured article criteria page are also invaluable, not only for prospective nominators, but also for anyone who wants to improve their skills in general. Harryboyles 14:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've gone through and given the article a copyedit, reordered for flow, and combined a couple of redundant parts. Tony and Harryboyles, I'd appreciate it if you'd take another look. There's probably some more work to do, but it should be a lot better. Pagrashtak 16:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Will the objectors please reassess? Pagrashtak 20:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've withdrawn my oppose. It's not perfect yet, though—a quick run-through and I had to make a few edits. In particular, generic male pronouns were used for players. I corrected a few, and hope there are no others. Pluralise "player", or use "his/her" or even "s/he", or reword to avoid. Tony 22:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.