Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars/archive2

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 SandyGeorgia 19:13, 26 March 2011 [1].

Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars[edit]

Nominator(s): « ₣M₣ » 01:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capcom's "legendary" Versus fighting video game series known for the Marvel vs. Capcom and Capcom vs. SNK installments went on hiatus for nearly eight years. With the arrival of Street Fighter IV, came the revival of the fighting genre and the next Vs. installment. Timing may have been intentional, but in any case let the nitpicking begin!

In regards to the last FAC, Games Radar, Kotaku, and Destructoid's quality were questioned and are still in the article. While I find "high quality reliable sources" and "Video game journalism" together as an oxymoron, does anyone else have concerns with their use? Also, images were not changed.« ₣M₣ » 01:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sources were a particular issue last FAC, I'll take a thorough look at them when able. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right of this page (The gamezone link, all of your wayback ones are too but that's on purpose). --Pres N 00:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an image copyright review by Stifle.
The article uses two non-free images and one free image. I am reasonably satisfied that the use of the non-free images complies with WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment would it be worthwhile on the table to identity the game or property that each of the characters are from? A casual reader seeing this table may not know who all the characters are but connecting them to their source would help that (they still may not know the source, but that's ok for this level of detail). --MASEM (t) 18:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the list use to look like. See comment below. « ₣M₣ » 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the gist of the comment below, but this comment is more to other reviewers as well: unlike your list of events from Olympic games (which are generally reasonably well known, and more a matter of what specific events they didn't program in), we're talking characters that may be obscure to some people, particularly those on the Tatsunoko side. If no one else raises the issue, hey, fine, addition later may be ok. But others may feel for this FA to be complete the list needs more explanation. I'm ok without them those see the value in that. --MASEM (t) 23:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out that the current version of the character table DOES link to their respective series/franchise, except in the event where they have an actual character page. That should be enough, right? -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About character list Since its easy to add, remove, or whatever editors want to do about it, I think its best to take that discussion to Tatsunoko's talk page. If it helps, my last passed FA, Mario & Sonic, talked about adding a list of events. That closed with the discussion still ongoing elsewhere. « ₣M₣ » 19:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Note: I am reading this sequentially (i.e. general reader perspective), so if something makes sense later in prose, but I complain about it -- so would most likely a general reader. I have also never played any game in this (these?) series. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK

Moved resolved comments to the talk page. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- I just attempted to solve most of these problems. Like with Flow, I was the main copyeditor on this article. Unfortunately, I've never played the game; I had a hard time understanding a lot of the stuff in the Gameplay section. If something doesn't make sense, it's probably because I couldn't figure out what it meant. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, not you again! :) But, seriously, you are doing valuable job CEing articles, so kudos for that! — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. Anyway, I hope that I've alleviated your concerns thus far. I'll continue to tweak the prose if necessary, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, the Wikiproject need more people like him (and you). Unless I've missed something, I think that's most/all of it. « ₣M₣ » 01:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Weak support Well, looks fine to me. I am going to say "weak" though, since it is a bit gamecrufty but would at the same time expect the general reader to have some basic idea of what a fighting game is. But definitely, support. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:31, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (sorry it took so long for me to get around, but I'm a busy man!) I think the aforementioned Destructoid, Kotaku and GamesRadar refs are fine. While the Destructoid and GamesRadar pubs are iffier as sources in general, I think the authors (Crecente definitely meets WP:SPS and I think Killian does in this case as well) boost them to the standard necessary for inclusion in an FA. I have no issues with the prose and I don't think the article gets into game cruft; it's one of the few fighting games where I can follow all the different modes, and it's not presented as a game guide. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: I believe that the article meets the FA criteria. The changes from the last FAC (which I also supported) look to have improved the prose. I'm not pleased to see the character list return, but I don't think that should hold up this nomination. I'll pursue that on the article's talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Support - Read through the article, only ever played one fighting game before (and never a Capcom one) and I had no trouble following what was going on. Didn't spot any prose concerns, and I agree with the above analysis of the references. I'm not sure about the character table, but not enough to withhold my support. Two points- I'd like to see the Famitsu review in the review table, though, since it's a Japanese game and that's the primary Japanese review. Also, ref 45 is one page, so p., not pp. --Pres N 00:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the only score for CGoH and since its never abbreviated in the article (I don't think anyone other than fans abbreviate it), I chose to leave it in prose. Otherwise, good catch. « ₣M₣ » 20:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

More review needed. Spot-checking for problems:

MOS:CAPTION issue
WP:LQ issues: the punctuation for full quotations is supposed to go inside the closing quote (has any of this been checked for MoS?)
The use of quotations in the Reception section borders on excessive. Use quotations only when the statement is something memorable and not easily paraphrased.
"Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica enthusiastically wrote" How does one enthusiastically write? Quick typing with giddy noises?

--Andy Walsh (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asked Tony. « ₣M₣ » 00:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checkout comments from H3llkn0wz above. « ₣M₣ » 18:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Support As a fighting game enthuiast, i'm quite interested in any fighting game that appears for GAN or FAC. I've taken a once, a twice, and a thrice over the article and nothing appears to conflict with this game becoming FAC. Infact, I believe this article should become the benchmark for all fighting game articles to become. It so says so much in so few words, and the only issue I find with it is the large amount of whitespace in the characters' section because of the table, but it does not take away from the content of the article, which is what Wikipedia is used for. Sorry for such a lengthy comment, but that's my view on this article. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just as an FYI for those interested, I removed the character list. The discussion on the article talk page wasn't in-depth, and no one replied to my comments. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I thought these Easter egg date links were specifically discouraged by WP:MOSDATE? Unsure, please review:

It was originally released in 2008 as the Japan-exclusive ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That rings a bell. I think this is easily solved by including "released in" with the year. There's actually a template [2] for that, which I've included. « ₣M₣ » 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Undefined term in the lead, what is the Vs. series, and why is there no link to it? All I can find is Heisei era (daikaiju eiga). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for this Vs. series since editors focused on its Marvel sub-series. The best place that defines it is the navigational template at the bottom of the article. Weighing in what you and H3llkn0wz said, how is "Vs. video game series consisting of Marvel vs. Capcom and Capcom vs. SNK"? « ₣M₣ » 18:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Up to two players"? Not much of a range-- wouldn't that be the same as one or two players? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, changed it to that. « ₣M₣ » 18:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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