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 GrahamColm 10:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

God of War: Ghost of Sparta[edit]

God of War: Ghost of Sparta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 15:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the last nomination had only one comment. Because of this, Ian Rose left a note on the last nomination saying I can renominate this. --JDC808 ♫ 15:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I only saw one typo (which was a grammatical one). --JDC808 ♫ 20:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 20:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wikipedian Penguin[edit]

Comments—unfortunately, I'm a little concerned about the prose (1a). From the lead alone , I found:

I won't oppose, but parts need to be read aloud and fixed, such as repetition. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I went through all points and tried to fix them. --JDC808 ♫ 17:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still need some work in the lede.

Took care of the first four points, and I believe I got the last one. --JDC808 ♫ 04:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see what the issue is when other game articles have done this with no problem, but I've removed them. --JDC808 ♫ 00:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed. The Wikipedian Penguin 09:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sp33dyphil[edit]

Comments This is a well-referenced and detailed article; however, I've got several minor issues that need to be addressed:

I believe I took care of all these. The "PS3" abbreviation is used in Marketing and Reception. --JDC808 ♫ 21:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I am happy with the article as it is. It is sufficiently detailed and well referenced. The non-free images have adequate rationales for their use. Regarding jps's comments, I don't believe GOW:GOS is as significant as for example, Halo and Crysis, to warrant such an emphasis regarding its place in the gaming culture and community. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :] --JDC808 ♫ 04:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by jps[edit]

Oppose It looks like this was a thoroughly-written article, but there is a major lack of context here. Let me explain: The fact of the existence of this game and where it fits in to other games produced by the game-makers is well-documented, but there needs to be more to this for an article to be outstanding. The article lacks higher criticism that would be necessary for any featured article. What makes the game particularly noteworthy and how does it compare in the larger cultural context to similar games? What have cultural critics said about it? There is also a lot of discussion surrounding video gaming culture that could be included in a featured article but is missing here. Is the game appealing to a certain demographic and, if so, why? What kind of profit did the company make on the game and did it make or exceed expectations? What do critics have to say about the content and the technology utilization? Finally, why does this game deserve any attention whatsoever? If there hasn't been a lot of attention paid to this game by people who can provide a larger context for it, I'm not sure there is much that can be done given Wikipedia's guidelines on original research, but a truly good article on this subject would include analysis that would be thought-provoking. If no analysis can be found in reliable sources, I'm afraid it just may not be possible to make this a featured article until such sources exist. This is in no way to detract from the hard-work that the people who wrote this article put into it. It's just to say that there are limitations to what can be a great piece of work on Wikipedia. Sorry. jps (talk) 14:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. There are many featured video game articles that do not have the level of analysis you're asking. There's a whole Reception section of criticism in the article. --JDC808 ♫ 21:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm coming to understand that the standards for featured articles have become a little bit more lax that what I remember, but when I complained, people say, "so participate in FAC". So here I am. I really don't know what else to tell you. I do think it is possible to write excellent articles on video games, and perhaps even this video game, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia policies will allow it considering that sourcing seems to be an issue for some of these less heady subjects. This isn't your fault at all, it's just the way things have developed. jps (talk) 01:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do hope that the delegates consider this oppose non-actionable. You'll be hard pressed to find any serious academic research, answering most of you questions, on such a recent video game, particularly one which is blatantly commercial. If you know such sources exist but aren't used, then that might be actionable, but asking for something that's never been written goes against everything FAC should stand for. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The presumption that every single Wikipedia article could eventually be featured is one I find highly problematic. There are some subjects that Wikipedia simply is not capable of accommodating at the level necessary for it to represent the highest-quality article possible to be written (this is simply not a professional-quality article, but, as I stated above, it is not the fault of the nominator that this is so). I hope that delegates consider this carefully: by promoting articles that fail featured article criteria 1b) because Wikipedia simply does not allow the kind of research that would be necessary to make a comprehensive article on the subject, the idea that "featured articles" are actually high-quality pieces will no longer be true. jps (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps not every article could eventually be featured, but I see no reason why this article could not be featured. I see context given in the Setting and Development sections. The only thing I see lacking, and there may be nothing on it, is a possible impact or influence of the game. Did Sony doing anything differently because of this game? --Odie5533 (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a delegate myself, I would discount this oppose because it requires something that is outside of the FAC criteria. Opposes must address the article with realistic expectations of why it misses the current criteria and how it does so. What jps is asking for simply cannot be addressed because, as Crisco says, it doesn't exist for a game like this. — ΛΧΣ21 11:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 1b) is not outside the FAC criteria. jps (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is not criteria 1b, but how you are applying it. Criteria 1b applies for source material that exists, not that is desirable. — ΛΧΣ21 19:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, Criteria 1b) says absolutely nothing about whether source material exists. Try again or get consensus to modify the criteria. jps (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is fairly evident that 1b) is only about material that exists. Under your perspective, ninety percent of the current featured articles should be demoted because of 1b then, which would be a pity. — ΛΧΣ21 03:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not evident to me at all. Featured articles should represent the best-possible work similar to the best-possible found anywhere else, and sometimes that's not something that can be presented within the confines of Wikipedia since this website is set up to regurgitate rather than truly innovate. There definitely are featured articles which provide context perfectly well with the sources that exist. I am simply of the opinion that if an article does not do this then the article shouldn't be featured. It's not an insult, it's just that it's not the best possible because Wikipedia doesn't allow it. I haven't done a systematic study, but even if you are correct and 90% of the articles shouldn't be featured, it's better to remove the problems than to keep them maintained just because it would be a "pity". Editorial review processes should be exacting. There is always the option of scrapping the standards or making them clear that they aren't about the best possible article, but only the best possible "Wikipedia" article. I admit that sometimes I think that FAC has turned into such a closed shop, but there was a time when it was set-up to actually look for content that was better independent of the strictures of this website (or, rather, in spite of the strictures). jps (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but best possible translates to if exists to me, which is exactly what I am saying. I don't understand what do you exactly mean by saying that "Wikipedia doesn't allow it," since we can include almost anything as long as it's a reliable source, of high quality. A featured article must contain exactly all, if not more, that any printed encyclopedia would have. As far as I know, printed encyclopedias only include content that is verifiable, e.g., that exists. They don't go braggin' about how a topic could be best covered, because that's the work of the sources, not the encyclopedia. — ΛΧΣ21 04:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow, if the material doesn't exist to put something in the proper context, how can it be described as satisfying the completeness criteria. How can an inherently incomplete article be described as one of the "best articles Wikipedia has to offer"? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that completeness is based in material that exists. Isn't it? — ΛΧΣ21 04:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you assume that? If you can not write a complete treatment of a topic because the sources don't exist for that topic then it is inherently incomplete until those sources exist. It can not be the best of the best on wikipedia because of that. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the issue here is that Jps is asking for something that most video games never receive. All video games receive the same coverage: reviews from magazines, interviews with the developers and news post about their development, which are the sources used to write video game articles. Video games don't receive scientific or analytic coverage about their impact on society, on a cultural or technical way. Only a few games receive such a treatment (the GTA series, for example) but not all of them. It's just simply something that is unusual for video games, in and out Wikipedia. So, asking for such sources to write about that is something that would never be actionable. This article has everything anyone would search for in a video game article, and by no means is incomplete. — ΛΧΣ21 14:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have an assumption there, that I agree that most games should be able to be featured. I am under no such illusion. Put it like this, when people want to look at the reliability of wikipedia, they don't look at how accurate the games article are because they are mostly irrelevant in the real world. They look at the articles that actually matter like those about history, science, or art/culture with a major impact etc. Games are part of culture, and there is no sign that the place of this game in culture can be discerned. It is those articles about areas of culture where the proper contextualisation can be given that we truly have the best of the best, it is this inherent lack of contextualisation that indicates it should not be featured. This article is not the best of the best, and can't be unless those sources exist to put it into context. It seems to me that FAC is moving away from "the article is one of the best" so it should be featured to "We can't see how to improve this article therefore it should be featured". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are an amateur when it comes to encyclopedia writing, as am I. I do, however, know professional encyclopedia writers. They tell me and I concur through my consumption of such content that the best articles are the ones that are written with an eye towards explaining a subject that is not well explained in other sources. This is forbidden at Wikipedia by WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH and rightly so because we don't have a professional editorial staff to look out for craziness. It may be that some academic somewhere in some obscure library has written an amazing analysis and contextual description of this video game. In that case, I'm sure if we could find such a source the author would be happy to run out and immediately use the source as a basis for fulfilling criteria 1b). However, if such a source doesn't exist, a good encyclopedia would empower an expert to produce such an analysis. Wikipedia's own rules prevent the author from doing so and therefore prevent the author from fulfilling the criteria for featured articles. If you'd like to see how such original work looks, go ahead and check out something like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which produces excellent quality work with lots of synthesis that Wikipedia would not allow. jps (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the broader point in here. Not all topics are covered in the same way, and it mainly depends on the part of the human world at which the topic is most common to. Scientists won't be writing about video games, for example. Articles, and their related topics evolve corresponding to the people who write about them, and find themselves interested about them. But you know all of this. Now, asking for an article like this to contain the same amount of analysis as, say, an article about a chemical element is apples to oranges. I think that sometimes people forget that Wikipedia is a reference source of information, not a source of analysis. — ΛΧΣ21 04:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing the point that it is possible to outline what an excellent article about a video game should look like and this is not it. jps (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just agree to disagree then. This article is up to our standards and thus there is nothing here against its promotion. — ΛΧΣ21 02:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe this article is "up to our standards", then changing criteria 1b should be the result of this discussion so you don't mislead people like me. I was bold a followed my own advice: [2]. jps (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I consider that it is extremely obvious given our guidelines that everything we write should be based on reliable sources, I consider that your edit is good. Sometimes being explicit is the best way to avoid being mislead. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 14:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between "basing" something in reliable sources and only including analysis that is done in reliable sources. The current ethos of this website is to encourage people not to go "beyond" the sources which is what would be required to actually do what I'm asking above. It's not hard to contextualize Sparta in terms of the academic work that has been done on the subject, but if no reliable source actually does it, WIkipedians' hands are tied. jps (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you very well know that our hands are tied, then why asking for something you know can't be done? To make a point? — ΛΧΣ21 15:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - reverted the change as without consensus. More to the point, could this discussion please be continued outside of this nomination? It's kind of unfair against the nominator to discuss a general question in one specific nomination. GermanJoe (talk) 14:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General question? The comment given was about how this specific nom should not be featured since it does not give the kind of context one would expect of the best wikipedia has to offer. To draw an analogy, there are notable topics which are inherently stubs due to lack of sources, one would assume they can not become featured, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no lack of sources here. There is a lack of sources that would satisfy jps' demands, which are outside of the FAC criteria. — ΛΧΣ21 01:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I consider this "oppose" as non-actionable. Although the discussion is interesting, this this is not right forum. Did I miss a source and image review? Graham Colm (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source and image review[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Image check - all OK (fair-use OK for identification and gameplay screenshot of discussed features). Tweaked one purpose and captions.

Alright, thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 21:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More