Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's 2/GA1
GA Review[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ForksForks (talk · contribs) 03:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Did FNAF 4, so I think this will be an easy one to dig into now.
Comments[edit]
- Lead: Would love a sentence or two extra about the reviews of the game. "criticized it's difficulty" is a little light imo.
- Expanded a little.
- Gameplay: In my opinion paragraph three especially reads too much like a guide. I don't think the details of how to ward of Foxy, Chica, etc. are particularly relevant as compared to describing broadly that you can do X, you can do Y, Z can also happen. But overall this section is close.
- I disagree. Reviewers gave commentary on all of these gameplay mechanics in their reviews, and WP:GAMEGUIDE concerns typically concern truly excessive listings of mechanics with far more detail than is listed here. Take a look at Skyrim for a gameplay section that may be getting into GAMEGUIDE territory.
- Noted, thanks for the comp. ForksForks (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. Reviewers gave commentary on all of these gameplay mechanics in their reviews, and WP:GAMEGUIDE concerns typically concern truly excessive listings of mechanics with far more detail than is listed here. Take a look at Skyrim for a gameplay section that may be getting into GAMEGUIDE territory.
- "The player is killed" this phrase comes up a few times, it's worth being specific at least once if this means it's a game over or if dying is normal.
- Clarified.
- I changed "unnamed purple figure" to "purple-colored" but I am squeamish about the phrase. I think it makes sense to work the 'purple guy' thing into the article, but I'm not sure if it makes sense to a totally uninitiated reader. No action requested, but if you have an idea about this feel free to take a crack at it.
- Probably working the whole purple guy thing in would be confusing to the average reader, and I would personally just leave it at purple-colored
- Agreed. ForksForks (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Probably working the whole purple guy thing in would be confusing to the average reader, and I would personally just leave it at purple-colored
- Reception: The last paragraph is especially weak in my opinion. It reads more like a list, I'd prefer two or three really good example sources with blurbs strung together with prose, like in the FNAF article.
- The problem is that there are only five reviews from reliable sources listed on Metacritic, which is much less compared to the original game's critical reception. The reviews for this game also appear to be shorter overall that the original's giving less details to work with. Really it seems like most of the reviews are saying "FNAF 2 is just more FNAF 1, for better or worse" and there sadly isn't much to work with besides summarizing each individual review in a large paragraph of information, which is discouraged in WP:VG/REC.
- ForksForks query here. The Night Watch (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Here to say real quick that what The Night Watch said applies to basically every Five Nights at Freddy's game after the first one. Not a whole of options on what can be done in that regard. NegativeMP1 18:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- On a reread and with the minor changes that were made to the section, I think it reads fine. Definitely have to make the best out of some imperfect sourcing, and it's a good call not to give undue weight to individual reviews. ForksForks (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- The problem is that there are only five reviews from reliable sources listed on Metacritic, which is much less compared to the original game's critical reception. The reviews for this game also appear to be shorter overall that the original's giving less details to work with. Really it seems like most of the reviews are saying "FNAF 2 is just more FNAF 1, for better or worse" and there sadly isn't much to work with besides summarizing each individual review in a large paragraph of information, which is discouraged in WP:VG/REC.
- Citations: I deleted some, but there are a lot of mid-sentence citations, and there are a lot of paragraphs that seem over-cited in general. Especially since this is material that's unlikely to be contentious, I think with respect to visual flow we have leeway to cut down citing the same source multiple sentences in a row and try to move cites to the end of sentences where possible.
- Some of the details have been mixed between several sources, which is why the article seems over-cited when in actuality I'm just trying to make sure the information is attributed to the correct sources. This is not an unusual method of citing, see Katana Zero, The Longing, Pizza Tower etc.
- Per the method of mixing multiple sources per sentence, and the comps, I'm OK with this. Thank you. ForksForks (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
- Some of the details have been mixed between several sources, which is why the article seems over-cited when in actuality I'm just trying to make sure the information is attributed to the correct sources. This is not an unusual method of citing, see Katana Zero, The Longing, Pizza Tower etc.
- References, images, neutral, stable, etc. These all seem fine to me. I'll do some reading in the meantime to see if I can come up with anything that is needed to broaden the article but this seems good so far.
Conclusion[edit]
Happy to pass this article. Well maintained shorter articles that can pack a lot of detail and are tightly written really improve the encylopedia, and also serve as good models for other video game articles in terms of form, tone, and sourcing.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.