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 Ian Rose 02:41, 25 May 2014 [1].

---

Deathrow (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): czar ♔ 21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a quick and neat little read: Deathrow, the 2002 ultraviolent futuristic rugby alternative sports game that combines hockey, basketball, and a gang fight. Reviewers commented on its edginess and compared it to a tradition of futuristic rugby alternative sports. And boy did they love the cursing. Almost everyone commented on the game's frequent f-bombs, which became perhaps its defining characteristic. The IGN reviewer called it "best use of endless cursing in a game... ever" and the EGM reviewer could tell the developers were European because of the "awkward, over-the-top expletives in obnoxious American accents" paired with rugby. The prose flows nicely and it says just enough about the core encyclopedic subtopics without going into excessive detail. Thanks for taking a look czar ♔ 21:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Czar. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

• This is one I've noticed going back months into the past, so now's the time to voice it: Why is "alternative sports" linked just to "sports game"? Why link it at all, since "alternative sports" doesn't seem to be a common classification?
• "as an Xbox gaming system exclusive" - Nonstandard; try "as an exclusive for the Xbox game console".
• "Development started in May 1999 as an online PC game" - Spurious grammar; the development wasn't an online PC game. I'd change it to "The game began development in May 1999 as an online PC title".
• "Set in the year 2219,[1] Blitz is the world's most popular sport" - Also questionable; Blitz, the sport, can't be set in a year.
• "The game won the TeamXbox 2002 Breakthrough Game of the Year award and the IGN 2002 Best Game Nobody Played." - TeamXbox and IGN should be linked, and those award titles should likely be in quotes.
• "Xboxes" - I know what this means, but it's not standard, I think. Switch to "Xbox consoles" or the like.
• Is "fun" really a notable feature of the reception to mention? This goes for both the lead and Reception.
• "Some critics felt the game's use of profanity" - Probably worth a mention just how frequent and perceivedly awkward the profanity is; currently the sentence comes off like some critics thought the profanity was a genuine positive rather than a "so bad, it's good" quality. Or am I interpreting it wrong? (This too goes for both loci.)
• I feel like the game's plot may not be covered in enough depth. My impression is that it's as fleeting and dismissive as even our coverage of main-series Pokémon plots.
• Current ref 27 ("Pittsburgh Post-Gazette "Deathrow"") has some URL issue at play.
• "for its additional power" - Compared to what? Maybe the PS2 and Dreamcast, but the Xbox wasn't any more powerful than the GameCube or, as is my impression, contemporary PCs.
• "The characters are made of over 7000 polygons and 55 bones" - Each? If so, say so.
• Merge the second and third paragraphs of Development together.
• "ties go to the incumbent team" - Confusing; incumbent by what metric? Having won a majority of the rounds already played that match? If so, what if the two teams are tied by wins (1 or 0 wins each) before tying a round?
• Second paragraph of Gameplay's rather long in general. I'd split it such that the nascent third paragraph begins with "There are 150 unique".
• Are you sure those comparisons are necessary for Gameplay rather than Reception? I could go either way, but I'm uneasy.
• "Racer also found the music generic, and the voice acting good" - Rephrase; this should be a contrast.
• Can you briefly explain somewhere in the article on what System Link is?
• "IGN described the controls as "relatively simple" and easy to understand within a single game" - This is not appropriate anywhere outside Reception.
• "An overcharged shot will electrify the player" - Then what? Is the player stunned for a few seconds?
• Is "Sequel" relevant to Reception? I'd prefer it stood on its own as a level-2 section.
• "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Troy Oxford also connected the profanity to the game's "'M' rating"" - Unnecessary.

Not too far overall. I'll keep this watchlisted, obviously. Come over to Wisps' FAC if you have time. Tezero (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resolved all. Some feedback: I kept "alternative sports" because it's what sources used the most (and is synonymous with the "extreme sports" genre, which is linked to sports game the same way). The "Xbox gaming system exclusive" is fine, grammatically. IGN/TeamXbox are linked in the preceding sentence and I'm not familiar with the rule that would put the award titles in quotes. (It's like winning Best Actor at the Oscars.) I don't think "Xboxes" is an issue since its parent does it too, but I changed it. I believe "fun" is supported, but don't have an opinion on it so I struck it for now. (No fun.) Re: profanity, there was a section on it starting with, "Goldstein regarded Deathrow's profanity as ...", unless you wanted more. I don't think there's any more to the plot worth elaborating. Racer line isn't a comparison but a listing of what Racer found, so should be okay. I believe "System Link[5] with up to eight players across up to eight Xbox consoles" covers what you want to know about that. IGN "simple controls" in the Controls section is absolutely fine by my eyes and I don't know why it'd be treated differently from, say, how IGN might explain that the easy mode is really easy. Especially if it's corroborated, it's most pertinent where it is. I kept Sequel level three because it's more about the interest surrounding a sequel than one planned. czar ♔ 22:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, I missed the earlier links to IGN and TeamXbox. I'd still prefer quotes around the award names as they're not linked and are nowhere near as well known as ones like Best Actor, but I won't withhold support for that. My only real remaining concern is about the controls' simplicity; I really don't favor including a statement about the controls being simple, nor would I a statement about the easy mode being easy. At best it's unnecessary; at worst it's a value judgment. Tezero (talk) 23:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't recall any VG articles using quotes for awards. I know I just copyedited GTA V, which had a whole section of unquoted awards. I see value in including a description of the controls as "simple" in a section that describes the controls, but I'm cool with deferring to your adamancy on this one, since it's not worth pursuing further and I trust your judgment. czar ♔ 01:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. That's fine; if someone else decides, with a good reason, that it's better and adds it back, I won't rescind my support or anything. Not a huge deal; just doesn't seem encyclopedic to me, but hey. Tezero (talk) 01:28, 21 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review by PresN[edit]

• File:Deathrow (Xbox) PAL cover.jpg - Fair-use video game cover, shrunk in size, FUR filled out (minimally- I'd like to see the other fields filled out)
• File:Deathrow (Xbox) screenshot.png - Fair-use screenshot, only one in article, shrunk in size, FUR mostly filled out- please fix this. Also... it's a screencap from a youtube video? Blurry- try to find a better one.
• --PresN 19:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PresN: The screenshot's the best available. All others I've found are either even lower res or the same quality. Filled out other fields even though "n.a." is the Upload Wizard default for that template. czar ♔ 05:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passed. --PresN 14:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from CR4ZE[edit]

I have previously reviewed the article for its GAN. It looked good then and it looks great now. I only have a couple of things to note.

• The game is introduced as an "alternative sports game", but this is never developed or sourced in the body. You have explained the mechanics well in Gameplay, but you could reintroduce "alternative sports", source it, and use that first paragraph as an explanation.
• I'm still unclear on what is meant by "crowd-pleasing". What actions does the player perform to fill up the meter?
• In Controls, there are a lot of sentences starting with "The". Introducing some variation would help the prose flow a bit more.
• "A multi-disc gameplay option and an Extreme difficulty are also unlockable". First time you've introduced "difficulty". Could be jargon. You could explain what "difficulty" means, probably in terms of bumping up the AI intelligence. Wikilink it?
• In Development, the method to implement downloadable content could be explained. The source talks about an "Upgrade" mechanic. Can you develop that into the article?
• "Two IGN staffers predicted the game to be a sleeper hit." → Doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the paragraph to me. Both sources go into a little more detail about why it will become a sleeper hit, so you could develop on that point. Would it perhaps fit better in the last paragraph? CR4ZE (t • c) 05:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, CR4ZE. Good points. I think I've addressed them—can you take a look? And since you've already started, might you have time to do a quick source review? czar ♔ 13:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The additions look great. You probably could remove the footnotes after "to be a sleeper hit:" as they're cited again just after, but it's not a requirement. I'll be checking through sources today or tomorrow. CR4ZE (t • c) 01:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There's no description of who "Crushers" are in Gameplay. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review

I conducted the review on this version of the article. I checked through all 33 sources including print mediums. It's a good thing you archived the online sources because some appear to be down.

• Source 6 supports "alternative sport". I wouldn't consider it a great choice, and having researched online, I'm not seeing any reliable reviews refer to Deathrow as an "alternative sports" game. It's only ever a sports/action game. The wikilinked article, Sports game, gives no mention to an "alternative" genre. I am seeing a strong case for the removal of "alternative" unless you can find some more concrete support.
• I have to agf on all of the subscription sources if there's no free way that I can check that information. In the interest of transparency you might want to try and locate other editors who have subscriptions to the websites you've used.
• Source 16 supports the second paragraph of Development but it never mentions polygons, bones etc.

That's it as far as I can tell. Good work. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. I believe I've corrected the above, if you'll take a look. Let me know if you'd like me to send along some of those subscription/offline refs for the sake of the source review. czar ♔ 04:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it's possible, I would like to see the subscription refs for transparency's sake. When I reviewed the GAN a few months ago you provided me with the offline refs so I've been able to double-check them again anyway. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your mail function is disabled, so here's the temporary link: [2] czar ♔ 04:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - Thanks, everything looks good. CR4ZE (t • c) 05:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next steps[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Does this nomination need anything else? czar ♔ 05:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two supports isn't really enough. Least, Ian Rose said it wouldn't be back when Channel was only at two. Tezero (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was my understanding that it's less the numbers than the quality of the reviews and consensus czar ♔ 05:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality of reviews and consensus is indeed vital. That said, while a 'required' number of explicit supports is mentioned nowhere in the FAC instructions, the convention has always been a minimum of three, assuming they're offered as part of a comprehensive review based on the FAC criteria. In other words, one-word or 'drive-by' supports don't count, any more than one-word or drive-by opposes count against. In fact based on a sampling I took a few months ago, the average number of supporting comments contributing to an article's promotion is more like four. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}[edit]

All right, I'll bite. I owe czar a few favors anyway, so I might as well lend a hand.

Gameplay

• "while avoiding full-contact from their opponents" - The linked article mentions full-contact as any sport where players impact force on others. Is this a punch, a tackle, a block, or another type of contact? As worded, it's a bit ambiguous.
• There's a few instances where citations appear mid-sentence without any punctuation to separate a phrase. I've had some wonder as to whether or not that is proper style; I would personally prefer to see citations at punctuation points, although not necessarily at periods, to increase readability and aesthetic.
• "there is no pause in-between points scored" - What does this mean? And why is "in-between" hyphenated?
• "The game's artificial intelligence" and "The game allows"... Two sentences in a row that start practically the same way reads choppy.
• Why is "play-style" hyphenated? This doesn't look to me like it fits MOS:HYPHEN as a compound modifier or a prefix.
• "half regular, open stadiums, and half with environmental obstacles, such as the underground mines." - This needs a little clarity. Do we have half-regular stadiums, open stadiums, and half with environmental obstacle stadiums, or half "regular, open stadiums" and "half with environmental obstacles"?
• "A powerful shot, called a Deathrow, is incapacitating when aimed at a player." - Does this mean it incapacitates the player shooting or the player being aimed at?

Development

• "Character faces can add additionally express emotions like happiness or anger, and feelings of pain." - "Add additionally?" Is this a typo or am I missing something here in the meaning?

Reception

• The first paragraph of the reception mentions a lot about the game being under appreciated, with IGN even calling it the "Best Game Nobody Played". Is there any reason given why this might be, or anything on its sales to support this?
• Sequel subsection - very little of this strikes me as being about a sequel in itself; only the first half of the one paragraph really talks about it. Maybe the subsection can be removed? It's usually not great form to have one subsection by itself inside a section header.

Lead

• "There is no sequel planned, and Southend dissolved in 2013." - This feels rather dry to me, especially while there is elaboration on the sequel in the article. If you get rid of the sequel section as suggested above, this could disappear altogether, but even if you keep this detail, it feels very abrupt at the end of the lead as it reads.

It's very good, czar. Very close to FA. Having read this and contrasted it with Sega CD and the FAC review there, I can see we have very different styles of article writing, but I've tried to keep stylistic comments to a minimum here and just focused on that which I feel would legitimately improve this article while remaining within the MOS. I look forward to your responses. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost forgot as well: per the rules, I have to declare that I am also an active participant in the WikiCup. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 15:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Red Phoenix: Thanks for the review. The answer to your first Reception question is the "sleeper hit" paragraph near the section's end. I like the end of the lede because it underscores that the franchise is dead with great economy of words. Re: the ref placement, WP:REFPUNC is okay with it (uses it in one of the examples) and the WP:CITEFOOT guideline says it's fine for source integrity. "In-between" is the standard usage in NOAD. Not sure what you mean about stylistic differences, but I'm curious (if you want to elaborate). And I think I've addressed everything else—let me know what you think? czar ♔ 15:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the quick response, czar. Going point by point here on your responses: I see now the sleeper hit section, which somewhat felt like it was hiding, but it's there. That comment can safely be struck. Re: "the franchise is dead with great economy of words" - do we have a reliable source that no sequel is currently planned? No sequel has been released, that much is certain, but without a reliable source we really can't directly say that no sequel is planned, and we can't assume that the studio collapsing has ended the franchise. For all we know, knowing that the Southend staff was absorbed into Ubisoft Massive, it may be something they're planning to do someday but hasn't received any coverage (not to mention years alone have little bearing on the death of franchises in video games; note Kid Icarus as an example with a 21-year gap between releases, or Metroid after the departure of Gunpei Yokoi from Nintendo until its revival in Metroid Prime). We don't know that, of course, but we don't know the opposite either because it's not directly stated in a reliable source. It's going to be important to be cautious with such wording to avoid potential WP:NOR issues. Thank you for finding the relevant guideline on ref placement; I've been looking for it for the last couple of days in regards to other reviews and couldn't find it. I still don't feel comfortable with such usage myself, but if it's in the guideline (and it is), I won't let it hold me back from supporting this. In regards to "in-between", does NOAD allow it for usage as a preposition? The hyphenate is certainly a valid adjective, but it's being used as a preposition in the above sentence. Though I would trust NOAD above Wiktionary, compare in-between and in between on Wiktionary, and note the two different usages. On stylistic differences, that's a conversation for our user talk pages as casual discussion, I am sure; it has no bearing on this review and was merely an observation of my own curiosity. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 17:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Red Phoenix: Good points, cleaned up. Thoughts? I struck the "in-between" since it sufficed without the prefix, but MW would use the word without the hyphen for a preposition. Anything else? czar ♔ 17:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - Looks good, czar. I too would use "in between" without the hyphen as a preposition, and agree with MW on that. That is the proper usage, and also what Wiktionary says too. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 18:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note -- just a minor formatting point, the usual thing with multiple citations is to list them in chronological order, see "and Speedball,[5][4][8]" and "The reviewers bemoaned its high difficulty curve,[5][4]" as examples to review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ian Rose: Is that a friendly suggestion or a requirement? It hasn't been an issue for me before (and I don't see a rule for it). For the reader's sake, I prefer to cite footnotes in declining relevance instead of ascending numerical mention. czar ♔ 01:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

czar, not that it really matters in terms of a review and I don't know if it's in policy or not, but I can tell you just from experience of having it happen to me that anyone using AutoWikiBrowser can and will shuffle it numerically, so regardless it may be difficult to try and maintain descending relevance. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 02:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not required. If they're just in random order I would rearrange them for neatness, but if you've an actual reason for the order used then feel free to stick to it. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, it's not a requirement -- I used to order multiple citations according to what part of a compound statement they supported, but gave it up as I don't think the average reader cares enough about the citations themselves, they'd rather just see that the statement is cited and that the cites look like they're arranged in a logical order. It's simply a thought to take away with you, we won't hold promotion up on that account. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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) 01:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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