Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killer Instinct Gold/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2016 [1].

Killer Instinct Gold[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 00:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing 90s video game history comes with a special set of source issues: a world of consumer magazines too young and insufficiently nostalgic to warrant systematic online archiving, and too old to be around in any form on the Internet or in public libraries. This is my second 90s game article (first FA being Mischief Makers though Deathrow was not too far behind in years), and I can say that it's really rewarding to track down every extant, major source on such a topic. I think this article makes an easy FAC because of this element of completeness alongside easygoing and engaging prose, and I hope you'll think the same.

This is a fighting game from a prominent video game series. It is enough of a one-off to not have a WP article until we started the recent 31-article Rare Replay project, but conspicuous enough to let us make some instrumental statements about its era. The article went through peer review mid-year. I'll note one technical point: that the Reception section publications are sometimes referenced as metonyms (that the publication said something rather than an author at the publication), and I kept this because those publications did not list authors in those works and thus the reviews were speaking as the publication's voice. I don't think it should be an issue. Thanks for your time (but don't be a c-c-combo breaker), czar 00:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Techtri[edit]

Extended content

Under Lead:

  • Players press buttons punch and kick their opponent in chains of successive hits - doesn't read right, something missing here. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a minor inconsistency between the lead Killer Instinct Gold uses many of the characters, combos, and 3D, pre-rendered environments of the arcade version while in the Gameplay section The game uses all of the characters, combos, and environments available in the arcade Killer Instinct 2 - is it many or all? Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Gameplay:

  • I'd prefer to see the footnote "Not all characters from the original reprised their roles." separated from the references.Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gameplay section mentions it excludes some voiceovers from the arcade release. I noticed the IGN article [2] mentions that all the FMV sequences from the arcade release are omitted in Gold also, is this worth mentioning? Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under Development:

  • during a time when British company was becoming a prominent second-party developer and ally for Nintendo. - I'd like to see this claim sourced. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rare's Killer Instinct series served as Nintendo's brand of the popular Mortal Kombat. Needs rewording, I'm guessing we're trying to paraphrase "Killer Instinct was essentially Nintendo's version of Mortal Kombat", but using the word "brand" here isn't right. Also do we need to mention that MK was popular? Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its soundtrack was released on compact disc, which was rare for 90s video games. - Would it be better to use "1990s"? Also I think the source only refers to it being a rare thing for a UK/US game. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under reception:

  • But while GameSpot wrote that Gold was decent - "Decent" looks a little out of place when used here. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under References:

  • The "Game Informer" ref appeared to be a dead link for me. If that's not a temporary issue, deadurl needs to be set to yes to swap over to the archive link. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too sure if the archive.org scans of the print sources should be linked to or not. Techtri (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! Thanks, @Techtri! I think I've addressed your concerns, if you'd like to take a look. My understanding is that the Internet Archive has unique permission to make specific, otherwise out-of-print, archival works available to the public, and I don't think it has been an issue before. czar 14:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

Comment on sources: The sources which you cite are all wholly appropriate for an article of this sort, but I would like to make a quick comment about formatting. It seems that in many cases what you're citing first and foremost is the physical magazine, with the online source being a mere courtesy link (this is especially true, for example, in the case of the Archive.org links). As such, you should really be citing them as magazine articles with URLS, rather than as web sources. So, as a "for instance", your Scary Larry source could specify that this was volume 9 and issue 2 of GamePro, and then there would be no need for an accessdate (as the source would clearly be the magazine, and not the webpage). Josh Milburn (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn, nice catch—fixed! Any more comments on the source review? czar 16:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some inconsistency when it comes to providing publishers for magazines/websites; I honestly wouldn't bother. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added GamePro's publisher but what are the other inconsistencies? The other publications either had no publisher or gave their name to the parent company. I'd also be amenable to just scrapping the publisher field for all of the refs in this case, as they are almost all hyperlinked and it's doubtful that they'll be misconstrued. czar 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not worried about things being misconstrued, I'm worried about consistent/professional formatting. So, I know that Destructoid's publisher is Modern Method, but I don't know the New York Daily News's publisher; I know that Nintendo Life is from the Gamer Network, but I don't know where Next Generation comes from. And so forth. When I say "I wouldn't bother", I mean I wouldn't bother providing the publishers- I can't say I've ever seen publishers provided for magazines/newspapers/journals in more traditional academic sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, because the Daily News's publisher is the Daily News (same for the NYT, etc.) and the standard is to not repeat in those cases—hasn't been an issue in my previous FACs. But as I said, I too don't see the publishers adding more clarification than clutter here, so they're gone now. czar 14:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy that this is a very strong article- well-written, well-sourced and an appropriate, scholarly tone. I made some copyedits; please double-check them. I have two "big picture" comments.

  • First, I know that you and I disagree about how to refer to our sources in the text; I aim for the citing of authors rather than the citing of publications. We can perhaps pin this on stylistic differences. However, I note that while you often approach this how I would (eg, "Doug Perry (IGN) found Gold '​s music to be crisper,[3] though he and Ed Lomas (CVG)") you sometimes refer only to publication, even though we have an author name (eg, with Allgame). It may be preferable to provide the author where you can.
  • Second, are you completely opposed to a character list? I note that a lot of video game articles would have a story section, but such a thing would (I'm guessing?) be inappropriate here. (That said, there must be some thin premise that explains why all these people are fighting each other- something about "Ultratech"? Shouldn't this be in the article, even if only in passing?) However, given that this is something discussed at length by commentators on the game and surely part of any enduring appeal of the series, maybe a list of the 11 characters (name, very quick description, notes indicating whether they are a new arrival, hidden character or what-have-you) could be added to the end of the gameplay section? It could even be a collapsible list so that it's only looked at by those interested. On a related note, it seems that the main character list article doesn't even specify who is and isn't in Gold.

I am close to supporting, but I'd like to hear your response to these. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn, thanks! Since many of the reviews did not have a lead reviewer listed, I think it's safe to assume that reviews were definitely speaking on behalf of the publication staff as a whole. I'd go further to say that the magazine is a much more useful metonym for the individual reviewer, especially when we are not expanding on their individual preferences at length and just giving basic overviews of their thoughts (which are presented on behalf the publication). Anyway, I updated Allgame and a few other examples to associate with the author but let me know if I missed any. I checked the manual (which comes with the game) and its story section says nothing about an Ultratech plot, nor does it show up anywhere else. None of the reviews mentioned it either. The manual didn't include any background on the characters either (just lists of the move sets, no personal background). I'd say that since both the reviews and manual didn't find it important enough to explicate, that it shouldn't be important to us either. This said, I think it would be fine to show continuity of characters in the section/article dedicated to the series characters. But for the sake of the encyclopedia article on the game, I'd say that the fictional character detail falls on the far side of video game trivia. czar 07:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence here. I'm inclined to think that plot/character details are important, and that the article isn't complete without them. I'm going to mull this over a little and see what other reviewers think. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though, to reiterate, I do think it is a very strong article! Josh Milburn (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn, any last thoughts on this? czar 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my last thought is that I am very much not opposing. I am not of the view that this fails the FA criteria. However, I'm afraid I am not comfortable supporting at this time. I'm sorry to be such a pain, and I sincerely hope that this does not negatively affect the nomination. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Famous Hobo[edit]

Alright, enough messing around, let's do this.

Lead

  • Killer Instinct Gold uses all of the characters, combos, and 3D, pre-rendered environments of the arcade version, but adds a training mode, new camera views, and improved audiovisuals. Change "all of the characters" to "every character, combo, and 3D pre-rendered environment".
  • Following the success of the 1995 Killer Instinct port for the Super Nintendo home console... Why not just say it's full name?
But that is its full name—and the other details are included to provide background for why there was a sequel in the first place czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewers preferred the Gold Nintendo 64 port to its arcade equivalent. I'd remove Gold, since it's more or less redundant.
  • Critics recommended the game primarily for fans of the series and genre, but IGN reported that even fans were upset by changes in the combo system and the absence of several well liked characters. Why is IGN in italics? Also, link IGN, as most casual readers won't know who they are.
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles#Major_works: "Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized". In the article's context, IGN exclusively refers to an online publication that produces original/creative content (and in no capacity as a network/company) czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

  • The game uses all of the characters, combos, and environments available in the arcade Killer Instinct 2. Once again, change all to every, and reword as "every character, combo, and environment".
  • There is also an additional hidden character. You should mention how to unlock this character, if one of the sources mentions it. While playing Rare Replay, I remember unlocking the extra character with a cheat code for an achievement.
None of the sources said anything more about it czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Development

  • The Killer Instinct series began as an arcade game (1994) and became known as "Nintendo's version of Mortal Kombat" upon its release on the company's Super Nintendo (1995) and Game Boy (1995). Once again, why not just simply write out the full name for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System?
  • The image states that the game was included as a launch title, but this is contradictory to what is stated in the third paragraph. If you meant to say it was originally meant to be included as a launch title, reword.

Reception

  • This is the one section that's a real problem in my mind. The problem is that you jump all over the place. Like seriously all over the place. One minute, it mentions the music, then the framerate, then whether reviewers recommend the game, then a reader's poll, and finally a quiet European release, in just one paragraph. I honestly can't support this article until a little more order is brought to this section. Take for example The Last of Us (no particular reason for choosing this game, other than it was the first one to pop into my mind). That article's reception section gives individual aspects of the game their own section, as to what reviewers thought of it (plot paragraph, characters paragraph, gameplay paragraph, etc.) I can see the second paragraph of this article working, because talks soley about the sound and backdrops, but still, this section as a whole needs a good reworking.
I didn't think this was off, but I've tightened this based on your feedback. TheLast of Us comparison isn't apt—the game launched a thousand think pieces and reams of Reception on its constituent elements (on each, separately!) Game reviews from the 90s are shorter and less detailed (print mags), especially on games not considered masterpieces. The goal is to adequately summarize the reviews, and the reviews were generally thumbs up/down for sound/graphics/gameplay. Anyway, I think you'll like the cleanup. czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • No problems here.

Like others have said, this is a VERY solid article, just need to cleanup the reception section to get my support. In regards to a plot and characters section, I think it would be quite pointless, since this game really doesn't have a plot other than "an evil guy is evil, and you need to fight him" or something like that (I never made it very far in this game to find out). Famous Hobo (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo, appreciate the review. I think you'll like the changes, but let me know what you think? czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh definitely, that reception section looks better. Sorry about the comment about the reviews, I don't deal with a lot of old games. Anyway, I'd still like to get a clarification on the N64 caption as to whether it was a launch title, or if it was pushed back, but other than that, you got yourself a Support. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, thanks czar 22:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink[edit]

Support. I stumbled here from my own FAC, thought I'd comment.

  • " Characters including a gargoyle, a ninja, and a femme fatale fight in settings such as a jungle and a spaceship" - could use a comma or a dash after the "characters"
  • "Rare was a prominent second-party developer for Nintendo" - specify when (the 1990s)
  • "It received a wider release in May 1997." - maybe specify "worldwide" instead of "wider", for people who don't know that term.
  • An announcer narrates major game moments with phrases like, "Awesome combo!" - this could be an odd comment, but are there any other phrases from the game that might be a bit more.... appropriate? Don't get me wrong, it's fine, but it doesn't have a ring of excitement, especially involving a major game moment. If you don't have sources to any other phrase, it's fine, it just struck me as somewhat odd for an article going for FAC.
  • "There are ten characters in total: three new and seven returning from the previous title." - new from the arcade port? Or the original?
  • "There is also an additional, hidden character." - no comma needed
  • I feel like this sort of sentence is missing from the lead: The reception was mixed. I read half of the article before realizing not many people really liked the game (I especially liked the quote about its shelf life being weeks, not months). Given how negative and mixed some of the reviews were, I think adding that sentence would help set the tone earlier on.

All in all it's a really good article. My comments shouldn't be too hard to address. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink, thanks! I think I've addressed them all, if you'll take a look. Awesome combo was the best direct quote that I saw in the material—I don't think it's so bad an encouragement. Also no source summarized the reception as being mixed, so I thought it would be original research for me to conclude as such myself. Instead, I think I balanced what the reviewers did posit about the game. czar 07:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great, thanks, looks good for me to support! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco[edit]

  • Lead strikes me as a bit long for the length of the article. I'd probably put less emphasis on the reviews
  • I'd try and reduce the lead's discussion of reviews to two sentences.
Reduced (reluctantly) czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the arcade version - Above you listed Killer Instinct 2 as a separate game, not a different version of the same game (which "version" implies).
  • You say it's a game based on a game. This implies that there are two games being discussed. "Version", meanwhile, implies that there is one underlying game, with different iterations. They are subtly but fundamentally different. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is both. It is both in the image of its model and its own entity. Fixed anyway czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the series remained dormant through its 2002 acquisition by Microsoft - might be read as only KI having been acquired by Microsoft, when it was Rare which was acquired
  • Again, this sentence as currently written implies that only the property was acquired by MS, rather than the company (viz. Bethesda's acquisition of Fallout, which did not include acquisition of Interplay). We should be unambiguous. "acquired by Microsoft through the purchase of Rare" or something more polished. Might work well as part of your discussion of the company in paragraph 2 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't imply anything other than that the series became Microsoft property, which is the only detail about the matter that I would consider important for the lede. The fate of Rare doesn't matter here for KIG at all, especially when I'm removing important parts from the lede for length issues anyway, no? czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with Czar; the fate of Rare is of limited importance, and the current wording does not imply, as far as I can see, that it was only KI that was acquired. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "combos" - why the quotes?
  • computer-controlled or human opponent - Although I know what you mean, this could be misread as the opponent being human, rather than the opponent being controlled by a human player.
  • the previous title - I don't think you've linked the original KI yet, outside of the lead. Might do it here.
  • Agree with Josh: a plot section is sorely lacking.
  • Page 7 of the manual, at the very least, says that it's some sort of tournament. Have you tried the game itself? That is an RS for WP:VG, albeit a primary one. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this when I first wrote the article. (1) If the sources don't think that tournament plot is worth mentioning at all, I don't think it has sufficient weight to be rationalize its inclusion. (2) Plot in the instruction manual doesn't mean it's present in the game—in fact, many 80s/90s games included all kinds of backstory and plot completely peripheral to the final release. czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't say that it is entirely peripheral. If we read the article on Scorpion, for example, we see that it mentions character developments which occurred outside of the games proper (even in the early 1990s). If we don't have much detail on the plot proper, however, there's nothing to do. Guess I will (reluctantly) accept the lack of plot. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • games industry, game industry, or gaming industry? Don't think I've heard games industry before
  • Reviewers highly praised the game's sound and environment backdrops, and noted that the character animations were not as sharp in comparison. - "And" suggests that both are parallel (i.e. positive); is this supposed to be contrasting them? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492, thanks! What parts of the reviews would you recommend cutting from the lede? It's perhaps a sentence longer than I'd like but I consider everything there either highly cited or important for understanding the game and its context in a nutshell. I'm not sure where you read that KI2 was listed as a separate game? The "based on" section of the lede? I worked with that sentence for a while, but since sources were hesitant to call KIG a direct port, I prefer to say that it's "based on" KI2 and then later explain that it uses much of the same elements. After establishing that, it shouldn't be a stretch to refer to them as similar or different version of the same thing throughout the rest of the article, no? An alternative would be: "Killer Instinct Gold is the 1996 port of the arcade, fighting video game Killer Instinct 2." I thought it was sufficient to say the series was acquired—it shouldn't matter for KIG that Rare was acquired too. I used quotes as a term of art, to distinguish its usage (at least at first). Did you see my comments to Josh above about no source (not even the manual) mentioning a plot? Games/game/gaming industry are used interchangeably in sources (video game reliable sources custom Google search). I think I've fixed everything else, if you'll take a look. Really helpful—thanks! czar 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492, I think I've addressed your concerns, if you'll take a look. Appreciate your time, czar 05:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rhain1999[edit]

Image review:

All images have proper rationales, and appropriate captions, so I can support on images.

For the sources, I looked at this version, and checked sources 1–12, 14–15, and 17–28. As much as I'd like to leave some comments for you to fix, I could honestly find nothing here. Every fact in the article is immediately followed by a source, all of which are reliable, and all referencing is consistent and appropriately archived. So, with that, I'm happy to support on sources. Incredible work, as always. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 00:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps[edit]

@FAC coordinators: Anything else needed here? czar 22:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: czar 15:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow response, Czar. I plan to go through the list to look for ready nominations today or tomorrow—I'll let you know if anything seems amiss. --Laser brain (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Killer_Instinct_Gold/archive1&oldid=1088822965"