Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee

Self-nomination. Me and another have completely re-written this article in the last few days, and I believe it meets all the FA criteria. — Abraham Lure 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Section headings need to follow WP:MOSHEAD. In addition, there is no discussion of the game's development. For a computer or video game, discussion of development history is needed to attain comprehensiveness. JimmyBlackwing 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• The section headings have been fixed to comply with the Manual. I will soon add a Development section. —Abraham Lure 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• A Development section has been added. It may seem quite sparse, but that's because there is very little to say on the subject. —Abraham Lure 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's much better. However, the article still has some problems, which I hope will also be taken care of so well:

• The "Characters" section reads like a bulleted list, without the bullets. See something like Final Fantasy VII for ideas on how to write a characters section without a bulleted feel. In addition, you might consider merging the more plot-related elements of the section into the Story section, and then moving Characters above Story, but still under the "Synopsis" heading (see Final Fantasy VII for an example of how this may be done).
• The last two paragraphs of "Allies, enemies and wildlife" suffer from a bulleted list feel, albeit not nearly as badly as the Characters section does. It should still be taken care of.
• The "Gameplay" section is slightly bloated with excessive details, some of which border on game guide material. A prime example of this is paragraph number 4. Also in relation to the Gameplay section, it would be useful to provide wikilinks to relavent subjects. It is not helpful to the uninitiated to discuss "hit points" without linking to Hit point.
• I notice a contraction ("doesn't"), in addition to several uses of "it's" instead of "its". These need to be fixed. The prose in general could use a tune up, but I'll give you a hand with that a little later.
• I noticed a bit of original research in some parts. Examples include "This also adds a tactical depth as Sligs patrolling in the distance can shoot towards the foreground" and "It is notable that Oddworld Inhabitants apparently listened to this criticism and added a Quicksave feature to Abe's Exoddus which did not require a checkpoint." The first sentence may need to go, but the second one could be salvaged by rewriting it into something like "The game's follow-up, Abe's Exoddus, implemented a save feature which did not require the reaching of checkpoints."

• Once all of these issues have been addressed, I'd be happy to throw my support in. It is an interesting, albeit obscure, subject that you've managed to detail quite well. JimmyBlackwing 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've attempted to address all of your concerns: the Characters section has been re-written and moved above the Story section in key with your advice; the allies, enemies and wildlife section has had some changes to try and stop the feel of a bulleted list; parts of the gameplay section have been removed and others rewritten (and wikilinks put in). I don't think it's bloated with unnecessary game-manual details anymore - each feature is, in my opinion, essential to mention; contractions have been removed, and parts of the prose has been improved, particularly that of the Story section; and the original research problem is fixed. Anymore comments would be appreciated. —Abraham Lure 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• A huge improvement. I think the prose could do with a little more work before I support, so I'll give the article a good once- or twice-over, instead of running you ragged. JimmyBlackwing 21:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your help. I'm kicking myself over the various mistakes and clumsy bits of prose you've corrected, but I guess that's why it's always best for more than one person to look over something!—Abraham Lure 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. There's one more thing that I forgot to mention: the images need fair use rationales. I still support the article, but this needs to be fixed. JimmyBlackwing 22:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationales added.—Abraham Lure 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see anything about the music in the game. If there's anything notable to say about it that should be in the article. Other than that, it looks good. jaco♫plane 18:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for you comment. I don't believe there is anything notable to say about music or it's composition, though I will add a part about it's reception in the Reception section. —Abraham Lure 18:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have questions about some of the sources used. Specifically, the GameFAQs.com, the-spoiler.com, www.staff.ncl.ac.uk, and users.telenet.be references appear to be self-published fan sites, which are verboten per WP:RS. Can we find reliable sources to replace their info? The article also seems way heavily reliant on official sources (the game, the manual, and the official website). I won't object if the fan sites are removed as sources, but it would be nice to have more information from third-parties who pass WP:RS. — BrianSmithson 07:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The fansites you mentioned have been removed and replaced, with the exception of users.telenet.be, as the cited information is available nowhere else except the game itself. I have used third-party sources wherever I could; unfortunately, there's just not that many of them. —Abraham Lure 13:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If it's in the game itself, shouldn't the game suffice as your source? And footnote 15 seems to be missing for some reason? — BrianSmithson 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, reference 15 was a remnant of one of the fansites. It is removed. I've also relented and removed the final fansite citation. :) —Abraham Lure 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Changing to neutral for now until I have a chance to more closely examine the article. BrianSmithson 04:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The majority of reviews for the game will have appeared in print magazines. Back in 1997, no one trusted online publications such as Gamespot and IGN, and no one cared what they wrote. For example, PC Zone have an online archive of their print reviews, and the Abe review is here. I also know for a fact that User:X201 has access to every single review by Edge magazine, so you can back up that score you cite with a quote. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Magazines, we also have access to a whole lot of magazines you can ask for scans and quotes from. They've not all been properly archived yet, but I guess that User:Mitaphane could give you the Next Generation review, if its different to Edge's. - Hahnchen 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the links and advice. I have so far added references and quotes from the PC Zone Magazine review, and hope to get content from the Edge review soon. I won't be removing links to GameSpot and IGN, however, because I still hold that they are reliable and as well written as their modern reviews. I believe the "back in 1997, no one trusted online publications" is non-point because all the reviews are readily available to read now, in 2006, when they are trusted publications. The year they were written is irrelevant to this. —Abraham Lure 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Their current reviews may be reliable, but when it mattered, when the thing was released, the amount of influence they had was tiny compared to the traditional press. Citing them as your main source, would be like citing a small town's newspaper for a movie review over Ebert. I've commented on music FACs where they just lazily cite online sources like allmusic and playlouder, whilst ignoring Rolling Stone or the NME, because offline sources were too hard to find. You're leading the reception section with IGN and Gamespot, when in reality what they thought of it wouldn't have mattered to the gaming audience, especially a console game. - Hahnchen 00:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• In the introduction, when briefly mentioning the reception, two of the references are from print reviews, while one is from an online source. The Edge review has now been acquired, and added to the Reception section - it's even leading the Reception section, and joins GamePro and PC Zone as the print reviews that I speak about. IGN has had it's quote removed from the text, though it remains in the table. As I talk about each part, I give priority to print reviews. For example, the Reception section starts with a print review and then discusses onlines ones; the graphics section of Reception starts with print reviews, and then discusses online ones; the criticism section of Reception again starts with print reviews; and the mentioned awards in the Reception section are awards from printed magazines. Is there still a problem?—Abraham Lure 12:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. JimmyBlackwing 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support looks good. Rama's arrow 00:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just out of interest, what happens now? There doesn't appear to be anymore objection (yet) to the article becoming featured, but there is only one actual Support... is that enough? I'm not sure because I'm relatively new to this Wikipedia lark.—Abraham Lure 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There's still time to go on this nomination, and I may take the time to read through it more thoroughly and support. You don't need to do much else but wait right now, although the closing admin could possibly have the deciding say if there isn't enough input. - Hahnchen 00:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and referenced. --Mika1h 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I guess this needs some votes, huh. Great article. --PresN 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)