Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Shadow of the Colossus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Shadow of the Colossus
I believe this article to meet all the criteria of being listed as an example of Wikipedia's finest. It's well written, having been slightly to significantly copyedited by several editors, including at least two from outside this nomination, as well as efficiently and relevantly illustrated, making use of images that convey an idea of each major concept mentioned, including aspects of gameplay. Moreover, it is extremely well-referenced, provides a comprehensive and clear overview of the plot-related aspects of Shadow of the Colossus's content while recognizing brevity appropriate to the subject material. It also features a thorough description of the game's reception, both commercial and critical, taking care to provide input from respected and recognized names in this works' medium, and an informative dissertation on the concepts and practices that went into the development of the title. May the nomination begin! Ryu Kaze 22:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'd like to co-nominate this article. Thanks to Deckiller for being our outside copyeditor. -- Steel 22:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty good, but I'm going to wait for Tony's feedback before I support :) — Deckiller 23:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Ryu Kaze 23:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support. My concerns have been addressed. Sijo Ripa 17:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks very much! Ryu Kaze 18:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Object. Currently, 10 images of the same company are used under a fair use rationale - which exceeds the fair use criteria in my opinion. See: WP:FUC: #3: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. (...) Do not use multiple images (...) if one will serve the purpose adequately." We can all agree (I think) that these 10 images are not "as little as possible". Moreover, in my opinion, most images serve a decorative purpose as they are not necessary or the necessity could be removed by altering the text. See: WP:FUC: #8: "The material must contribute significantly to the article (...) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Perhaps a "purely decorative purpose" is exaggerated, but most images do not contribute significantly in my opinion. I would recommend to trim the number of images down to 2 or 3. Sijo Ripa 23:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)- Reducing it to 2 or 3 would significantly impair the illustration of the concepts being presented, I feel. Often, video games feature concepts that — though described thoroughly and accurately in words — can't be understood in context without a visual representation. I do, however, believe that we could possibly reduce the images by two or three. I know we can lose the PAL box art image, the soundtrack cover, the image of the protagonist carrying the girl and possibly the in-game map image, but anything beyond that would be harming the article.
-
- Obviously, the first image is being used to show the game's most recognizable cover. The gameplay images display the battle mechanic and navigation mechanics, integral features in an article on a video game. The image of the game's protagonist and the girl he's trying to revive are — obviously — to demonstrate two of the main characters, one of whom is the reason for everything that's happening because she's dead and the protagonist wants her to live again. The colossus image below that is used to emphasise scale between Wander, his horse and the colossi, as well as to provide more variety in the portrayal of the game's colossi (of the 16, only two are represented visually in the entire article). Finally, the Nico image is because it's portraying an important aspect of both the game's development and a recognizable piece of merchandise associated with Shadow of the Colossuss.
-
- I will remove the four images I've mentioned that I feel the article could lose, but I would like to point out that many other Featured Articles contain more images than this. Remember: there's no "one size fits all" to the size of plot sections or how much imagery is needed to portray concepts. I feel that the images whose purposes I've described certainly meet the criteria for inclusion described in WP:FUC #8, and that they can't be removed without damaging the article. Thank you for your input, and I hope the changes performed will address your concerns. Ryu Kaze 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Okay, I've reduced the images from 10 to 6, and, like I said, I believe these that remain to be very important to the article. Please let us know if this takes care of things. Ryu Kaze 00:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Firstly, many FA's gained their featured status before a strict application of the fair use criteria were applied. (See for instance: Wario or Link (Zelda series)). Secondly, there is a difference between fair-using 6 (or 10) images of one company and fair-using 6, each of a different company (which is the case for many FA's). I truely appreciate the efforts made, Rya Kaze, but I still object. 6 images of one company are still too many, especially because I don't agree to the need of at least two images (which give me the impression that it is not "as little as possible" and the impression that it doesn't serve mainly a decorative purpose). #1: Agro, the horse. I don't see the need to depict that horse, because it seems a pretty normal horse to me and even if it isn't a normal horse, I can't distinguish any specific characteristics that make it a different horse (=that make the picture notable and necessary). What I'm trying to say: what is the necessity to depict the horse? It doesn't contribute significantly, even more because the horse can be seen in a similar way in the "pursue of the thirteenth colossus"-picture below, which further reduces the need of the picture. #2: the DVD cover. It doesn't seem to really add anything to the article, besides being decorative. If you remove those two, I can accept the others as "as little as possible" and "necessary" (and will cease to object). Sijo Ripa 08:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, the fair use criteria still aren't strict in what is "as little as possible". That's quite subjective, as is "contributing substantially". On the matter of the two images you still find fault with, I'd like to point out again that the first of the two isn't being used to depict Agro. Its purpose was to demonstrate navigation (the beam of light that's used to locate colossi), but I suppose the concept is pretty straightforward in how it's described in text, so maybe we could lose it. As for the Nico DVD cover, I'll replace it with an actual image from the development feature, which is obviously significant to the work because a) it's the concept video that began development and b) it allows the readers to see the "then and now" aspect of development. Ryu Kaze 12:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I understand that we have to reach some sort of consensus. I will cease to object if you implement the above changes. Sijo Ripa 12:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, to be fair, the fair use criteria still aren't strict in what is "as little as possible". That's quite subjective, as is "contributing substantially". On the matter of the two images you still find fault with, I'd like to point out again that the first of the two isn't being used to depict Agro. Its purpose was to demonstrate navigation (the beam of light that's used to locate colossi), but I suppose the concept is pretty straightforward in how it's described in text, so maybe we could lose it. As for the Nico DVD cover, I'll replace it with an actual image from the development feature, which is obviously significant to the work because a) it's the concept video that began development and b) it allows the readers to see the "then and now" aspect of development. Ryu Kaze 12:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Firstly, many FA's gained their featured status before a strict application of the fair use criteria were applied. (See for instance: Wario or Link (Zelda series)). Secondly, there is a difference between fair-using 6 (or 10) images of one company and fair-using 6, each of a different company (which is the case for many FA's). I truely appreciate the efforts made, Rya Kaze, but I still object. 6 images of one company are still too many, especially because I don't agree to the need of at least two images (which give me the impression that it is not "as little as possible" and the impression that it doesn't serve mainly a decorative purpose). #1: Agro, the horse. I don't see the need to depict that horse, because it seems a pretty normal horse to me and even if it isn't a normal horse, I can't distinguish any specific characteristics that make it a different horse (=that make the picture notable and necessary). What I'm trying to say: what is the necessity to depict the horse? It doesn't contribute significantly, even more because the horse can be seen in a similar way in the "pursue of the thirteenth colossus"-picture below, which further reduces the need of the picture. #2: the DVD cover. It doesn't seem to really add anything to the article, besides being decorative. If you remove those two, I can accept the others as "as little as possible" and "necessary" (and will cease to object). Sijo Ripa 08:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Support may have some minor issues such as fair use images but on the whole it is featured article quality. Joelito (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you! I'll be addressing the fair use concerns right now as is, so no worries. Ryu Kaze 00:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Great article, though I'm wondering why you have so many references in the section detailing the plot and characters? This is more of an observation than a criticism, but why do you need them? Dark Kubrick
-
-
- In responce to the above question - the plot in the game is very minimal, so a lot of information regarding the characters or the story is open to interpretation. In order to avoid speculation, fanfiction, and OR most of the plot and character points have to be sourced. Hopefully that clears it up.Tani unit 02:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you for your support, Dark Kubrick. As Tani explained, in order to make it clear that we're not inserting fancruft of any kind, such as speculation or original research, we have to cite references for all that we're referring to with regard to the plot. This is a practice commonly used on video game articles because people often are unaware of where the information has come from and will change it to something less detailed (even though the details there before were correct) or to something that actually is speculative if there's not a source for them to refer to. Ryu Kaze 03:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support. As a frequent editor of the article, I give my support. The article, ever since it was peer reviewed by the folks over at the CVG Portal about a month ago (and more recently received a positive formal peer review), has undergone many changes, both significant and minor, to ensure it meets the criteria of a featured article. We'll try to fix any flaws as soon as possible, and thanks for your support! --Onlynameicanget 03:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I support as an editor of the article, it's nice to see how much came out of a petty edit war. Schicksal 04:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. Ryu Kaze 12:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak Object - too short + lacking info on several important aspects --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)- The article is 46 KB long, which is actually over ten KB longer than recommended size. Also, what "info on several important aspects"? — Deckiller 06:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Very well; the objection is invalid — no reasoning is given. Raul will pass by this objection when promoting, unless it is supported with reasoning. — Deckiller 06:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, this objection is non-actionable. "Too short" is highly subjective, but inaccurate nonetheless in this case, and you don't mention anything that the article's lacking. If you're referring to all the gameplay info that used to be there, that stuff had to be removed because it belonged more on GameFAQs than Wikipedia. Ryu Kaze 12:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support - the article looks pretty good once all the dust was settled down and stripped of unnecessary parts.--Toffile 14:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot for your support. Ryu Kaze 15:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support - Great job Ryu and Steel, you've turned this into an incredible article. --PresN 18:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support – You've done it again, Ryu. I'll be waiting for the next game you nominate to reach FA status. ♠ SG →Talk 19:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, on behalf of all of us who've contributed. We certainly appreciate it. Ryu Kaze 19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. Why did you put the list of songs in the soundtracks in a box of its own. Why not in a simple table? CG 19:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, a table would take up unnecessary space. With this small box, the page isn't stretched. This is also the way Half-Life 2, a previously selected video game Featured Article did it. Ryu Kaze 19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I oppose this way of displaying. It's obtrusive and a list at the end of the article won't hurt much. The table could consist of two columns to save space. CG 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Obtrusive? The tracklisting box was designed so that it would not be obtrusive. Putting a table or list there would take up much more space in the article than that tiny box does. --Onlynameicanget 21:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've got to agree with Onlynameicanget here. The box couldn't possibly be less obtrusive unless it was nothing more than a link to the list. Compare the current version to the presentation that used to be there. You can also look at either of the tables[1][2] that have been used in this article in the past. Even the one that was only two columns wide (as you've suggested be the case here) was a massive eyesore. Now imagine a table like that with 42 lines. That would damage the quality of the article significantly. Ryu Kaze 21:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- What's wrong with this version? CG 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused. You say the current scroll box takes up too much space, but your alternative actually takes up more space. -- Steel 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sharing Steel's confusion. Ryu Kaze 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- You didn't get the point. I wasn't arguing about the space (in both examples, the space taken is relatively small). I oppose the way of displaying the tracks. The current format poses many problems. For example when I select-copy-past the whole article, will all tracks display correctly on Ms Word for example. And look at the printable version, will all tracks be printed out? CG 07:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have never seen this be a concern for anyone before, but given that you are concerned about it, I'd like to point out that copy-pasting the entire page is a problem in and of itself, namely because you're going to be including the navigation tools on the left, top and bottom when you do that. However, nonetheless, yes, all tracks display correctly when you copy-paste the entire article. I just checked. As for the printing matter, I don't know. I've not tried it. I honestly don't want to either, as it seems like a rather pointless use of ink and several sheets of paper. I'm not even sure that this is generally a major concern of any kind, but if it is to you, check it out and less us know what happens. I'm sorry if this is a big concern to you for some reason I'm unaware of, and I'd check it myself, but printer ink and paper cost money, and I'm not looking to sink money (beyond the time already spent) into volunteer work. Ryu Kaze 11:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- You don't have to print the article, just use the Print preview feature of your navigator and you'll see that not all tracks will display. I mean give me one good reason the list of tracks should be displayed in that complicated and restrictive way, since the older version didn't take much space (Compare the two printable versions 1 and 2. CG 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because it's not complicated or restrictive and takes up less than half the space of the alternative. -- Steel 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- For the record, I don't really see how that is a big problem. If you want to print the list of tracks, just copy+paste it from the box. That box does wonders for the aesthetics of the article versus that huge eyesore of a list. Schicksal 18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- You don't have to print the article, just use the Print preview feature of your navigator and you'll see that not all tracks will display. I mean give me one good reason the list of tracks should be displayed in that complicated and restrictive way, since the older version didn't take much space (Compare the two printable versions 1 and 2. CG 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have never seen this be a concern for anyone before, but given that you are concerned about it, I'd like to point out that copy-pasting the entire page is a problem in and of itself, namely because you're going to be including the navigation tools on the left, top and bottom when you do that. However, nonetheless, yes, all tracks display correctly when you copy-paste the entire article. I just checked. As for the printing matter, I don't know. I've not tried it. I honestly don't want to either, as it seems like a rather pointless use of ink and several sheets of paper. I'm not even sure that this is generally a major concern of any kind, but if it is to you, check it out and less us know what happens. I'm sorry if this is a big concern to you for some reason I'm unaware of, and I'd check it myself, but printer ink and paper cost money, and I'm not looking to sink money (beyond the time already spent) into volunteer work. Ryu Kaze 11:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- You didn't get the point. I wasn't arguing about the space (in both examples, the space taken is relatively small). I oppose the way of displaying the tracks. The current format poses many problems. For example when I select-copy-past the whole article, will all tracks display correctly on Ms Word for example. And look at the printable version, will all tracks be printed out? CG 07:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sharing Steel's confusion. Ryu Kaze 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused. You say the current scroll box takes up too much space, but your alternative actually takes up more space. -- Steel 23:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- What's wrong with this version? CG 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've got to agree with Onlynameicanget here. The box couldn't possibly be less obtrusive unless it was nothing more than a link to the list. Compare the current version to the presentation that used to be there. You can also look at either of the tables[1][2] that have been used in this article in the past. Even the one that was only two columns wide (as you've suggested be the case here) was a massive eyesore. Now imagine a table like that with 42 lines. That would damage the quality of the article significantly. Ryu Kaze 21:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Obtrusive? The tracklisting box was designed so that it would not be obtrusive. Putting a table or list there would take up much more space in the article than that tiny box does. --Onlynameicanget 21:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) I'm not too sure if the print preview is giving an accurate idea of what will be printed. It's showing more tracks on there than I normally see when looking at the page in my browser. In any event, I don't see how it's a very complicated presentation, nor all that restrictive. It's a simple scroll box. The older version is far more visually imposing and draws the focus of that section to the list. Also, again, the Half-Life 2 article (a Featured Article) uses this same method, and I'm unaware of any precedent for this thing being considered a problem.
- I oppose this way of displaying. It's obtrusive and a list at the end of the article won't hurt much. The table could consist of two columns to save space. CG 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, a table would take up unnecessary space. With this small box, the page isn't stretched. This is also the way Half-Life 2, a previously selected video game Featured Article did it. Ryu Kaze 19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- For that matter, if it would cause problems for someone who was — for whatever reason — printing the page, they could simply print the first 5 pages as normal, do a basic copy-paste job for the 6th, print that, and then print pages 7-11 as normal. I don't see how this is a problem. It's not like somebody's report in an advanced English course is going to be dependent on their ability to print out a Wikipedia article without stopping to copy-paste one of the pages and print it by itself. For that matter, I'm unaware of anything in the Manual of Style that suggests against using this kind of formatting on the basis of printable versions. Your concern is appreciated, but I just don't see how it's pertinent. Ryu Kaze 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- I posted a message about this subject in Wikipedia talk:List guideline#Use of scroll boxes. Feel free to comment. CG 08:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- For that matter, if it would cause problems for someone who was — for whatever reason — printing the page, they could simply print the first 5 pages as normal, do a basic copy-paste job for the 6th, print that, and then print pages 7-11 as normal. I don't see how this is a problem. It's not like somebody's report in an advanced English course is going to be dependent on their ability to print out a Wikipedia article without stopping to copy-paste one of the pages and print it by itself. For that matter, I'm unaware of anything in the Manual of Style that suggests against using this kind of formatting on the basis of printable versions. Your concern is appreciated, but I just don't see how it's pertinent. Ryu Kaze 18:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Support - ignore my previous objections; it was a stupid act of vandalism that my friends and I did yesterday. I believe that this is a good article. It is factual, interesting, well-cited, and stable, and I would love to see it on the front page. --GoOdCoNtEnT 03:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. Ryu Kaze 03:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Oppose due to the scroll box. This FAC was brought to the attention of Wikipedia talk:List guideline for comment on the use of the scroll box. Even though the article on a whole is great, this is a candidacy for featured article, the best of the best. The scroll box looks damn ugly, and the rational to save space is just silly. You know what saves even more space? Deleting all the text. It's true! It saves tons of space if you delete the entire article! We don't write articles to save space. If the list is too bulky and not important enough to be shown in whole, then why is it on the article?? If it is too long for the main article then split it off as a list article. This partial hiding of content is just .. bad. It looks bad and unprofessional, it raises a question of technical compatibly like printing or browser rendering, and shouldn't be acceptable for a featured article. Also, I can easily see this being a way for vandals to hide their vandalism in articles. Content should not be hidden or partially hidden in articles. -- Ned Scott 08:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)- I accept your (and the above) points now they have been explained fully. I have removed the track list (and thus the scroll box) from the article. I trust this addresses your concerns. -- Steel 10:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- It does indeed. I now have no major objections and Support this article for featured status. -- Ned Scott 10:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks! -- Steel 10:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your support. While your concerns have already been addressed, I'd like to point out that you misunderstood the argument involving space. It was not that it saves space for the sake of saving space (an article will be as long as it needs to be, after all), but rather, that it's less imposing and doesn't unnecessarily stretch the page. That was the issue involving space.
- Thanks! -- Steel 10:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- It does indeed. I now have no major objections and Support this article for featured status. -- Ned Scott 10:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I accept your (and the above) points now they have been explained fully. I have removed the track list (and thus the scroll box) from the article. I trust this addresses your concerns. -- Steel 10:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- That said, as I mentioned a week or so ago on the article's talk page, I've always had misgivings about the list of tracks because it can be seen as somewhat trivia-ish outside an article specifically for the soundtrack itself, and — as you've said — if something is considered unimportant enough to be stuck in its own scroll box box like that in the first place, it might not be important enough to include anyway. The fact that Half-Life 2 utilized it, however, was enough to convince me to give it a chance, though I honestly can't say I'm surprised to see this concern over relevance brought up. Thanks again for your input and support. Ryu Kaze 12:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
While I wasn't opposing the list of tracks, I can now Support. You could create an article for the soundtrack. CG 13:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- We originally had an article for the soundtrack, actually, but most of it was merged into the main article. We may put the soundtrack's article back on soon if we can find a lot of unique and interesting information on it. Thanks for your support! --Onlynameicanget 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support. Ryu Kaze 14:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Support :) NCurse
work 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC) - Support. Looks like a great article for a great game. Congratulations to the editors. --L33tminion (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Violates fair use criterion #3. Five "fair use" images in only 44k of text is three or four too many. User:Angr 06:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I gotta say your measurement of fair use per data is extremely flawed. The idea of fair use being limited is that you only use the images you need. If the article needs five images, then it needs five images, and it doesn't matter how long the article is. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- If it's about what the article needs, then five is five too many. The article doesn't need any images at all, least of all so-called "fair use" ones. User:Angr 09:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Each image has a rather convincing fair use rational written up. The article would be lacking and not as complete without these images. It suffices all requirements of WP:FUC. Needs may be subjective, but they've done all that is required by policy and law, what more can you ask? -- Ned Scott 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- If I understand you correctly, Angr, you just said that Wikipedia shouldn't use images at all. If five is all we have and five is "five too many", then you've basically indicated that we should never use any images. Ever. I'm sorry, but I don't see the logic behind this. This objection is nearly non-actionable, and should possibly be dismissed. For one thing, failure to use the boxart would be failure to identify the subject under discussion. We're using the most recognized cover boxart for an English audience — which is what is supposed to be done. We've got one image for portraying basic elements of gameplay. We've got one image identifying the most important characters. We've got one image portraying the protagonist on his horse, while in pursuit of one of the massive colossi that need to be visually illustrated in order to emphasise their size. And then we have one screenshot from an early development video, which conveys a little bit of an idea of how things evolved as development went along (especially if the reader compares that bulky quadruped to the sleek flying creature in the picture before it).
- Each image has a rather convincing fair use rational written up. The article would be lacking and not as complete without these images. It suffices all requirements of WP:FUC. Needs may be subjective, but they've done all that is required by policy and law, what more can you ask? -- Ned Scott 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- If it's about what the article needs, then five is five too many. The article doesn't need any images at all, least of all so-called "fair use" ones. User:Angr 09:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I gotta say your measurement of fair use per data is extremely flawed. The idea of fair use being limited is that you only use the images you need. If the article needs five images, then it needs five images, and it doesn't matter how long the article is. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This sounds more like a discussion for fair use in general, and I can't say I appreciate this FAC being used as an outlet for someone's personal wikiphilosophy. Inclusionists and deletionists have attempted making use of FACs I've nominated in the past as a playground for "making an example" with their respective wikiphilosophies, and I've kindly told them to take it elsewhere. If that's what's going on here with regard to fair use, I'm going to kindly ask you to do the same. We have cut the fair use imagery in half (look at previous concerns raised in this FAC) and have left only those images which are vital. I see no further compromise that we are required to make here. Ryu Kaze 13:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Of course it's an actionable objection: remove all the images. As a compromise, I'll withdraw my objection even if you leave one or two. But stealing a bunch of images that don't belong to you, sticking them in this article, and then trying to get this article declared one of Wikipedia's best is simply immoral. And the same applies to every single other Wikipedia article; I'm not trying to pick on this one unfairly. User:Angr 15:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- This sounds more like a discussion for fair use in general, and I can't say I appreciate this FAC being used as an outlet for someone's personal wikiphilosophy. Inclusionists and deletionists have attempted making use of FACs I've nominated in the past as a playground for "making an example" with their respective wikiphilosophies, and I've kindly told them to take it elsewhere. If that's what's going on here with regard to fair use, I'm going to kindly ask you to do the same. We have cut the fair use imagery in half (look at previous concerns raised in this FAC) and have left only those images which are vital. I see no further compromise that we are required to make here. Ryu Kaze 13:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's actionable, but not within reason. Heck, one of these is a promtional image in the first place, while another was used in a video to demonstrate the technology that was going to be used in the game. The owners have been supplied full credit and fair use stipulations recognized. As I've said on your talk page and earlier in this FAC, this matter is a discussion for fair use in general, not individual FACs. If it becomes policy that we can't use fair use images at all, then and only then does it become an issue for individual FACs. Ryu Kaze 15:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think you exagerate, Angr. It's not "stealing". Fair use is codified in law, which means it's not illegal as long as the legal rules are followed. I did object to a lot of images because I thought these rules were not followed for certain images, but now that the doubtful images have been removed, there is no reason to object. The underlying rationale for the current images is possibly open for interpretation, but seems most likely to be valid and legal. You may however question this rationale of particular pictures and/or provide arguments why you think the fair use rules are not (sufficiently) followed; but simply stating that the pictures should be removed because you think it's immoral, is not a valid objection. Sijo Ripa 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Object, Large blocks of text with zero wikilinks, even on interesting topics. Also, wordiness and clumsy prose, like
-
- "A specific objective that Ueda wished to achieve with the game was an overall unique presentation."
- In addition to the man-made structures present, the land is characterized by diverse geographical features. The region is only accessible via a small cleft in the mountains to the north, which lead to a massive stone bridge. This bridge spans half the distance of the landscape and terminates at a large temple called the "Shrine of Worship" located at its center. It is, however, forbidden to enter the land."
- No spoiler warning around the story, even though it describes the ending in detail.
- really weird citation pattern, citing statements like "Despite a warning from the Dormin that he may have to pay a great price in order to revive Mono,[22]" but leaving uncited trailing information like "When trespassing upon their territory, some colossi ignore the player, while others will attack on sight. Inhabiting specific locations in the forbidden land, they do not venture outside their own territory. Once slain they will remain where fallen as a mound of earth and rock vaguely resembling the original colossus."
- oddly written lead. Of the three paragraphs, one seems to be all about the game's lighting. I know it discusses other features, but then give the paragraph a lead sentence that talks about all the features.
The article really needs a copyedit and better prose. It's informative, but not up to FA quality yet. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The two sections in need of copyediting ("Plot and setting" and "Development") have now been given one, and the lighting information in the lead paragraphs has been moved to where it's more relevant. I don't think the lead paragraphs lost anything critical in the process. I'd be grateful if you could specify which interesting topics aren't currently wikilinked but could be, so I can fix that. I realise I haven't addressed every concern yet, but thanks for the feedback. -- Steel 17:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- All but two things you've mentioned (spoiler tag and reference for the colossi turning to dirt) have been addressed now, Night Gyr, and I'll try taking care of one of them now. Spoiler tags aren't actually in the manual of style, so it's really a case-by-case thing and based on stylistic preferences. In this particular case, all the plot details are already in the section entitled "Plot", so we won't need to use the tag here. Now I'll try to get a reference for that final matter and hopefully alleviate the last of your concerns. Thank you for your constructive input. Ryu Kaze 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Night, I've added several references to the article now. Hopefully all of your concerns should now be addressed. Please let us know if there was something else, and thank you again for the constructive criticism. Ryu Kaze 19:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- All but two things you've mentioned (spoiler tag and reference for the colossi turning to dirt) have been addressed now, Night Gyr, and I'll try taking care of one of them now. Spoiler tags aren't actually in the manual of style, so it's really a case-by-case thing and based on stylistic preferences. In this particular case, all the plot details are already in the section entitled "Plot", so we won't need to use the tag here. Now I'll try to get a reference for that final matter and hopefully alleviate the last of your concerns. Thank you for your constructive input. Ryu Kaze 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. It's quite well written: Deckiller et al are doing well. Just a few comments.
- "miles"—I know where you come from. No miles in Japan, nor anywhere else but Liberia and Burma. Consider rewording?
- There's often a temptation to use "then" in a narrative. Try to avoid this; here, "then" can be neatly removed. Check that the future tense is OK here. It's the only one around.
- "miles of varied terrain"—I can tell where you come from. They don't have miles in Japan, or anywhere else but Burma and LIberia. Please reword.
- "Fully utilized in order to"—much nicer as "fully used to". Prize to anyone who can come up an instance where "utilise" is better than "use". There are several instances of this ... ugly word—two in three sentences under "Agro". Not nice.
- "Additionally, each colossus"—you don't need the first word. It flows more strongly without, and no loss of meaning. This word pops up several times. It's another one to avoid in a narrative, which is a long long sequence of many facts. They're all in addition to what has come before. The reader will unconsciously tire of this.
- "comprised of"—"consisting of" or "comprising".
- "Prior to"? Who's been studying Latin? "Before", please.
- "in vague detail" ....?
- There are lots of instances of "in order to". This should be "to", unless in the negative "in order not to". I feel like doing a Hitler salute when I hear it. Tony 15:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- THANK YOU! I thought I was the only person who felt that removing "in order to" and "then" was a good thing! :-) — Deckiller 14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deckiller's copyedit sorted out most of those, and I've just replaced every "utilised" with "used". There's still a couple of additionallys left, but it's no longer being used excessively. -- Steel 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ever high-quality advice, Tony, and good job to Deckiller and Steel sorting those issues out. Ryu Kaze 15:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deckiller's copyedit sorted out most of those, and I've just replaced every "utilised" with "used". There's still a couple of additionallys left, but it's no longer being used excessively. -- Steel 15:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- THANK YOU! I thought I was the only person who felt that removing "in order to" and "then" was a good thing! :-) — Deckiller 14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
-
