Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/.hack (video game series)/archive3

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 12:14, 3 September 2012 [1].

.hack (video game series)[edit]

Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a year and a half since the previous FAC. In the intervening time, the article passed GA. I believe it is ready to become a featured article. This article is unique because it discusses a series of four games as if they were one, which is true in a sense. As such, it features the infobox for a single game (because the VG series infobox is missing some relevant parameters) but a review box for a game series (to show review trends across releases). The development section, a sticking point of the previous nomination, is more than double the size it was before the 2nd nom and I believe it represents everything that the internet has to offer about the subject. I merged a stub article on .hack//fragment to this article because I think it is properly part of this series: it features an identical game engine, graphics, story, and gameplay, but with some online components. If there are any other editorial decisions that seem confusing about the article, please feel free to ask. Regards, Axem Titanium (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced theotaku and MusicBrainz. RPGFan is reliable, per linked discussions at WP:VG/S. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Reviewing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492

~~File:Logo dotHack.svg is clear PD-simple in the US. However, it's not only the uploader's work (company should be credited)~~

~~File:Dothack gameplay.jpg could be downsized a bit (300px * w.e.) to be safe. Also, the FUR could use a bit more clarification.~~ — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did what you asked wrt the PD logo? I also reduced the size of the second image. What exactly are you asking to be clarified in the FUR? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified the logo a bit, although I'm concerned as the official website doesn't have "dot" in the dot (i.e. not like the vector version).

A bit more clarification of the purpose of the screenshot would be useful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "dot" appears on the cover art of the games (e.g. [2]) but I don't see it on the website at the moment. I expanded the description in the FUR to explain the different gameplay elements that the screenshot shows. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Support As someone who knows nothing about the series, I was able to follow what was written in the article fine. I didn't find any notable issues, though some parts seem like a game guide at times. I'll support this article for FA unless other editors are able to find issues with the article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. What part felt like a game guide to you? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support A good article, and am glad it's in good shape, as I played the games a bit. :) Obvious support. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 17:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Axem Titanium (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support — Sorry for the delay. It's mostly good, here are my thoughts on remaining issues:
- "However, this power also increases the level of infection of Kite's player character, randomly causing harmful side effects. The infection can be cured by defeating monsters normally." — source for this?
- Meeting BlackRose at the Chaos Gate... -- What is the Chaos Gate? Is it really important to mention what it is?
- The one section that needs restructuring to me is the reception section; it reads as a laundry list, rather than a summation of critical comments for the series. You could either treat them as a whole, or go through each game, but listing each reviewer's thoughts for each game, one after the other, has got to go.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - Working... Axem Titanium (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've fixed all of the above except for the Reception section, which I'll need a little more time and brainpower to reorganize and draw in more sources. Working... Axem Titanium (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thanks for your patience, David. I had to take a break from Wikipedia due to work. I hope you find the new reception section more readable. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from Crisco 1492

Considering this isn't that big of an article, and we're neighbours, I'll take a look at prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~"without requiring the player to connect to the Internet." - if the MMORPG is not real, this is rather confusing. Perhaps "which does not require..."~~

"as a result of The World" - your phrasing in the article body is better, "result of playing The World"

"a fellow newbie" - You didn't say Kite is a newbie, just an average player

"Their teamwork destroys Fidchell " - Which is? And Gorre?

Fix the citation needed tags

~~(such as Wavemaster, Twin Blade, etc.) - Do we need the "etc." there?~~

Not many issues. I did a copyedit, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the CE and review. I think I addressed all of these points. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - Looks reasonably well written, fairly easy to follow, and interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment: Spotchecks of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 09:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see there's been at least a couple of supports and I actually went to the article to do source-checks and thus help it along; but just giving it a once over I have to beg to differ:
The reception section - which I think would be on the short side for a single, old game - is way too skimpy for a whole series of recent titles. And the gameplay and particularly plot sections are vast in comparison. As it stands, I don't believe this article fulfils the basic expectation that it focus on real world coverage and at the least is sorely lopsided towards in-game discussion.
Looking at the other sections: The ".hack//frägment" starts promisingly but turns out to largely discus the mechanics. The music section is good in terms of introducing critical commentary to the article, but this isn't enough to redress the imbalance. On the contrary, one questions why the soundtrack album's reception is proportionately large compared to that of the games. Ditto that the section on the spin-off .hack//frägment appears to be about as long as the reception section.
And I'm not sold on the style as being of a professional standard:
Someone disliked the reception section's "laundry list" of one-liners format, and I'd probably concur at least regarding the latter part (it, that is the reception section, does start quite nicely in terms of prose at least). I think this format can work (I've managed it I think... ahem) if dealing with sources short on actual critical commentary (old console print magazines for example) but I'm sceptical that this would be the case here.
Since I'm whining about the plot section... Take for example: "In the first dungeon they visit, they encounter a girl in white being chased by a monster with a red wand." Is it important that the girl is in white? That the monster has a wand? That the wand is red? Are these details necessary to understand the gist of the story?
- Of course it's not important, but "they encounter a girl being chased by a monster" is literally the most generic sentence ever. I also specify "girl in white" to refer back to her in the next paragraph. These details aren't critical to understanding the story, but without them, the reader cannot generate an image of what's going on in his/her head because there's no imagery in the text. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And sentences like: "He meets BlackRose and they go to a cathedral area where they are attacked by a powerful monster" I think are taking "simple, clear and readable" into children's storybook territory. It's subjective, but for my money the prose in the plot section is some way from a professional standard. Some redundant and/or possibly editorialising adjectives ("powerful monster", "mysterious encryption") and more prevalently and-then-and-then detail, in addition to the generally insipid style.
- I'm not exactly sure what you're looking for here. Would you prefer "He meets BlackRose and they go to a special area called Δ Hidden Forbidden Holy Ground where they are attacked by a high-level Headhunter monster"? The monster must be powerful, or else it wouldn't be a thread. The encryption must be mysterious, or else they would just hack it. I'm only half-kidding since I genuinely don't know what you mean when you say "professional standard". Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That illustrates my point: "monster" already indicates something frightening and powerful, so "powerful monster" is redundant (one might feel the need to clarify if they were attacked by a tiny weakling monster). By "professional standard" I'm referring to point one of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, that the article's prose be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". Forgetting about "brilliant", the prose is - IMHO - neither engaging nor of a professional standard. In the plot section it's too insipid (as I put it) or generic (as you put it) and just adding more descriptive detail makes it worse, not better. It's just too "They do this. And then they go here. And then they do this". The examples I gave were just examples, I'm pressed for time at the moment, but here's a couple of pointers (ultimately though, my advice has to be rewrite it so that it's both "engaging" and "professional"):
In the first dungeon they visit, they encounter a girl in white being chased by a monster with a red wand. The girl attempts to entrust an item to Orca but the monster attacks him and The World's servers crash. Kite discovers that Orca has fallen into a coma following the attack and resolves to discover why.[18] He meets BlackRose and they go to a cathedral area where they are attacked by a powerful monster. monster, monster, monster (and 2 further times before the end of the paragraph). Why "cathedral area", and not "cathedral" or whatever is meant by that? Lack of clarity: Is "...and The World's servers crash" co-incidental or caused by the monster attack?
Server instability aborts a planning meeting at the start of .hack//Quarantine. I don't think this makes sense. The instability must cause someone to abort the meeting.
"even more powerful than before", again stretching detached and descriptive.
Another big issue is that the the plot section is written almost entirely in-universe, which is doubly confusing because some of it takes place within a game, within the game (yo, we put an in-universe style in your in-universe style, so you can be confused while you're confused). Trying to figure out whether Harald Hoerwick and Emma Wielant are real people, whether stuff is happening to characters or characters' characters is confusing (examples again). bridies (talk) 05:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few minor style points I noticed which I may as well point out: "team up" (bit too informal), "which they escape from." (prefer "from which they escape." /pedant) and in the lead: "the lengths it goes to preserve suspension of disbelief", which I'm pretty sure should be ""the lengths it goes to, to preserve suspension of disbelief" (ungainly and would need changed in turn). bridies (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the gist of your oppose is that the reception section is too short in comparison to the rest of the article, a comment made by David Fuchs above. I wrote this article in 2010 and haven't really touched it since and I agree that the reception section was a little too trim. As such, I rewrote the section, bringing in almost 30 new sources. I hope that addresses some of the imbalance in the article. I've tried to address your other points about the plot section as well, and have responded to some comments directly, above. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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