Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sabre Wulf/archive1

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) 09:40, 21 January 2017 [1].

Nominator(s): czar 06:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the project to improve the articles of all 30 Rare Replay games, I present the 1984 game that started the Sabreman series. Eclipsed in history by the isometric advances of successor (and fellow FA), Knight Lore, this game was "much-beloved" in its own right. Though it is mainly known today as a colorful maze, it was among 1984's most popular games in the UK, topping sales charts and (possibly?) breaking sales records. The article is complete and has been vetted both through a thorough GA review and continual feedback from editors intimately acquainted with the game's nuances (I invite them to take a look: @J Milburn, Chaheel Riens, Ritchie333, and Diego Moya). After a close copyedit, the prose should qualify as "brilliant" for the FA standards, what would be my ninth. czar 06:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC) 00:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioning the current debate on the talk page, but there is one thing that I'm finding frustrating, am not familiar with, and indeed don't think I've seen on any other pages that I routinely edit, and that's the format of the references. Why are they in this particular format? It seems a bit long winded to have to click on what would normally be a reference, but instead takes you to a "notes" section, and then you have to navigate to the relevant reference section itself. I'm more familiar with clicking on the reference number to be taken to the relevant entry in the "references" section, or to click directly on the popup and be taken to the actual reference itself. That doesn't seem to be happening on the SabreWulf page.

I assume that this is an accepted way of using references, as the article wouldn't be in the position it is otherwise - but is it the best way of presenting references and sources? It seems to be adding an extra step for no good reason. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short footnote style is best for articles that use specific pages within a reference. For example, instead of having multiple full references for each page of an source, the short footnotes direct to a single citation. WP articles for older games often work better with short footnotes because they rely on page numbers instead of websites (which have no page numbers). See Knight Lore and WP:SFN for other examples. czar 17:19, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have clarified that I'd noticed a few of the other Ultimate articles use a similar method, but it just seems at odds with the commonest method of <ref>[blah-de-blah] here</ref>. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at odds—it's a standard reference format. Poke around the other FA noms to see similar footnote situations czar 16:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it's not the commonest format, (<ref>Here be dragons wulfs</ref>) which is what I said.

I see that Sabrewulf currently redirects to the Killer Instinct character. I suggest that it instead becomes a disambig with links to either the character, or the ZX game - possibly even the GB Advance game as well. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't related to the article (or the review) but I added a hatnote at the destination anyway czar 16:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I think you, uh, forgot to actually post this to the FAC page. --PresN 00:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN, oops. Thanks! czar 00:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the first two sentences of Reception have 17 references, making them very difficult to read. Can they be cut down or combined? It seems like a topic sentence that summarises the section; if that is so I don't think any references are needed because is referenced later on in the section.—indopug (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug, all challengeable statements need direct citations, and there isn't a single source that makes the same point. If there is consensus to do so, the footnotes could perhaps be combined—just for that one sentence—into a single footnote that elaborates on the sourcing. It's a clunky solution but perhaps better than the successive footnotes. Sentences similar to this have not been an issue in previous video game FA Reception sections, though, as they're the only way of creating summative sentences when no source has done the work for us. czar 17:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just group them inside a {{#tag:ref}} as done at Amphetamine (see the end of the first paragraph of the lead). Sizeofint (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sizeofint and Indopug, I think that's a decent approach—I did something similar czar 06:38, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{doing}} Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Sorry for the delay. Prose looks fine; I went through and made some edits personally. Images have appropriate rationales and licensing, and I think have decent NFCC defenses. References chosen seem neutral and appropriate for the subject matter; I spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 2, 5, 16, 31, and 34, and didn't see any issues with missing info or incorrect/bad citations that would suggest further investigation was warranted. Don't appear to be any major missing gaps in coverage, so I'm happy to support. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Sabre Wulf cover art.jpg: Non-free cover, which seems like the correct licensing to me. The non-free use rationale makes a good case and I am inclined to agree with it. Using the cover art to identify the game in the infobox seems fine for me.
• File:Sabre wulf 4.gif: Non-free screenshot. I am a bit uncertain on whether this use of a screenshot meets WP:NFCC#8 - I am not a videogame person but it looks a bit low-input.
• File:ZXSpectrum48k.jpg: Free image on Commons. Showing a photo of the platform (?) used to play the game on in the development section which discusses said platform seems fine for me. Marked as own work, no EXIF. Utilitarian object so derivative works copyrights probably don't apply.

ALT text seems OK for me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the review, @Jo-Jo Eumerus. I updated the FUR purpose on File:Sabre wulf 4.gif to better fit the contextual significance. Masem explains the general philosophy of non-free video game screenshots at the bottom of this linked discussion, if it helps. czar 18:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the screenshot from GIF to PNG, keeping the existing rationales in each case. (And giving it a more meaningful name while I was at it.) Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to fill in the remaining fields of the rationale then. I've also tagged the now orphaned file for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this article not have a disambiguation? -> Sabre Wulf (1984 video game)

Because the 1984 game is famous (the primary topic) while the 2004 re-release was a dud. And the hatnote resolves any residual ambiguity czar 17:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. --JDC808 ♫ 00:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

• "The Spectrum release was included..." After having to stop and reread this, I feel it would be clearer if you just said "Sabre Wulf was included..."; the following sentence you could replace Sabre Wulf with "It" or "The game". --JDC808 ♫ 23:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I rephrased it to lose the passive voice czar 17:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the only comments I had because I see no other issues. I Support. --JDC808 ♫ 00:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in excellent shape. Just a handful of issues:

• Crash predicted that the cost could have led to more piracy": I copyedited this from "lead" to "led", but then realized the tense doesn't really make sense. "Could have" implies Crash was discussing this much later, after it was clear whether or not the piracy had occurred, which doesn't fit with "predicted". Should this be "Crash predicted the the cost might lead to more piracy"? Or is the point that nobody knows whether more piracy occurred? In which case "predicted" is probably the wrong verb.
• "and the frustratingly narrow window in which sabre swings register as enemy hits": suggest "registered" to fit with the past tense used elsewhere to describe gameplay.
• 'Retro Gamer credited the Sabreman character as memorable both in name and appearance as an archetypal "8-bit hero"': not sure "credited" is the right verb here, and the rest of the sentence seems loosely structured, with two consecutive "as" clauses.
• "later released the side-scrolling platformer Sabre Wulf for the Game Boy Advance": suggest something like "later released a side-scrolling platformer also titled Sabre Wulf for...".
• "Retro Gamer considered Sabreman's recurrence to be": I think "reappearance" might be a better word choice than "recurrence".

Other than that I see no problems, and I expect to support once the points above are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, thanks for the review!

• I rephrased the first point to "Crash predicted that the cost would lead to more piracy." It was a prediction from 1984—no verification whether it came to fruition, but it is an applicable stance to mention. I think "predict" describes the magazine's position without making the call into some kind of "foretelling", which could imply correctness.
• Tense sometimes gets strange in game articles—the critics "noted", since the review was in the past (they don't continue to note), but the game is just as present as it was in 1984. So gameplay is usually described in the present tense, as the player would play it today (unless, of course, the game no longer exists in any extant form). But feel free to rephrase as you see fit
• Rephrased re: character memorability & recurrence

czar 18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struck all but two points above. On the tenses, I take your point about in-game description. Does that mean, for example, that it should be "Sinclair User particularly liked how the hippo enemies force the player to vary their...."? Currently you have "forced". The other unstruck point is because "Sabre Wulf" appears to be a link back to this article, but isn't, so "also titled" might be a helpful clarification. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie, it doesn't sound right in my head, but I think you're right that "force" is the better choice. Should be good on both points now—appreciate it czar 21:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The minor issues I was able to find have all been fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:40, 21 January 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.