Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Proteus (video game)/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Proteus (video game)

Nominator(s): Sam Walton (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a video game released in 2013. It received a wide range of coverage during development and after its release, and is often mentioned in debates surrounding the nature of video games. The article has had two Featured Article reviews before (see the milestones on the talk page), both of which stalled due to lack of response. Through that and a peer review I think the article is ready for FA status. Sam Walton (talk) 17:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support per last FAC with one reservation: It seems oddly biased to include so little about the PS3 and Vita versions if they actually received commentary like the computer versions. I mean, there are literally three pieces of critic information about those versions there, and only one relates to it being a different version. (Also, why is this information positioned in the middle of the issue-by-issue commentary, which looks fine otherwise?) Tezero (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the reply. Hmm, which of the other reviews on Metacritic do you think should be included? Fair point on the paragraph ordering by the way, I've moved it down one. Sam Walton (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I don't know; I haven't read any of them. I can't imagine none of the other PS3/PSV ones give any opinions about the differences between those and the regular versions. Tezero (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, what I mean is I used those 3 because they were the only three I recognised as being reliable and usually included in reception sections, Metacritic gathers a lot of critic reviews but we only usually use the main ones. Some commentary on the difference between the versions would be interesting so I'll take a look to see if that's written about anywhere. Sam Walton (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - I changed one of the PS Vita reviews to reflect comments on improvements in the Vita version. Sam Walton (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well written article with excellent coverage of topic. Comprehensive source check of all 52 references find no dead links, referencing style is consistent, and no evidence of copyright violations or close-parapharasing. Freikorp (talk) 07:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose: I'm noticing a lot of redundancy, and a bit of general shakiness, prose-wise. In the lead, variations of the word "explore" appear three times in two sentences, and at one point "generating" directly follows "generated". The second sentence is datespam, which is always unnecessary—but particularly in this case, since the release year and platforms are already mentioned in the first sentence. The game contains "no specific or set goals", but those are exactly the same. This applies also to the phrase "its own unique". "Award" occurs three times in one sentence. There's a noun plus -ing construction ("with the pair aiming") in the second paragraph. Lower down in the article, I see the phrase "full of an assortment of different sounds", which could be reduced to "sonically dense". Overall, the prose isn't terrible, but it very much needs a fresh pair of eyes. Have an outside copyeditor run through it. If the GOCE's waiting period is a problem, look through the recent FA promotions and cold-call a copyeditor from there. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I decided to address these specific issues, though feel free to revert my edits. Freikorp (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks, but the article still needs a top-to-bottom copyedit. My examples were just that—examples. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've made a couple of requests for someone to come and give the article a copyedit, but there's no point asking at WP:GOCE for now because the backlog is longer than this FA will last. Here's to hoping someone will take a look! Sam Walton (talk) 23:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - It'd be a shame if the nom was closed just because a copyeditor failed to materialize. If no one responds, keep looking. Maybe ask Dank or Crisco—they're solid writers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Sorry but five weeks into a review is not the time for a top-to-bottom copyedit. Pls take care of that outside the FAC process and then feel free to re-nom (assuming the usual two-week break following the archiving has passed by then). Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 23:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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