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 09:48, 21 October 2012 [1].

God of War: Chains of Olympus[edit]

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the page received a copy-edit as pointed out in the first FAC. JDC808 ♫ 02:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The text is outstanding and the images appear to be in order. I am impressed. If I had to make a suggestion, I would strongly recommend that you use WebCite to archive your web citations. I initially resisted this idea over at my Folding@home FA nom, but I was persuaded that it would preserve link rot over the years. You cannot guarantee that the citations will be stable in five or ten years. See WP:WEBCITE. • Jesse V.^(talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll look into that. --JDC808 ♫ 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just merged some cites to the instruction manual, but then I noticed an inconsistency. Compared cite No. 4 to the group of Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11. Are those to the same booklet? If so, they should be merged. If you can get the page numbers for No. 4, that would be helpful too. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:47, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the same booklet. That particular one (No. 4) was added by an editor before I became a major contributor to the article. I'm assuming that they did this to make it easier than having the same source with just the difference of the page number. --JDC808 ♫ 04:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That style is used on other articles, yogo sapphire is an example. See Help:References and page numbers for more information. • Jesse V.^(talk) 05:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I've been out pretty much all day. I'll merge those sources. --JDC808 ♫ 02:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. I just got rid of No. 4 as what it was citing was citable in the others. --JDC808 ♫ 03:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excelent work. An excelent videogame article. Comprehensive enough, detailed enough, well sourced and catching. As the GA reviewer i give my two thumbs to JDC and his amazing work here. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Appreciate it. --JDC808 ♫ 04:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I opposed in the earlier review due to the inadequate prose quality. Doing the same again. Take a look at the entire release section. How is that engaging? Are readers really interested in every date and every release? Is that stuff encyclopedic? I'd also move the last development paragraph into the release section. - hahnch e n 15:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Release section was supposed to tell of the game's release(es) and if there were re-releases and other editions. --JDC808 ♫ 23:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I figured the same thing, but I also agree it's pretty dry reading with just a list of release dates. Can you add any sales figures, or maybe find commentary from developers, publishers, or critics about its release? Another option would be to combine the release and reception sections and mix things up. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed the Sales sub-section from "Reception" and incorporated its info into Release. --JDC808 ♫ 01:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've strucken the oppose, because what I wanted it to do was to strike up conversation over whether all the release minutiae was encyclopedic. No one else seems to have voiced an opinion though, so I guess others don't find it an issue. Striking as I've not properly reviewed the rest of the article. - hahnch e n 20:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Impressive article, thoroughly well-researched and written. Your overall work on the God of War series is indeed impressive.--Tærkast (Discuss) 20:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --JDC808 ♫ 06:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I think this is very close, but I'm going to try to go over it one more time looking for any last nitpicks things I can find. I've done some copy editing, but there are a few points that you'll need to resolve as the expert.
- The second paragraph of the lead is a little confusing. In particular, these two sentences:
  "Kratos is guided by the goddess Athena, who instructs him to find the Sun God Helios, because in his absence, the Dream God Morpheus has caused the remaining gods to slumber. The Queen of the Underworld, Persephone, allies with Morpheus and enlists the aid of the Titan Atlas to use Helios' power to destroy the Pillar of the World, and in turn Olympus."
  
  The first sentence is a little confusing as to whose absence it is. The second sentence is just a bit unwieldy. Can you rewrite both for clarity, maybe break it into three sentences?

How is it now? I've clarified the first sentence and rewrote the second.

- Part of the gameplay is still a little confusing:
  "Gorgon Eyes and Phoenix Feathers, which increase the maximum amount of Health and Magic respectively, return and are found in plain, neutrally-colored chests."
  
  I don't understand what "return" means in this sentence.

Clarified.

- Explain what the Challenge mode is.

Explained. Does it need more explanation?

- This is a dangling modifier: "Eventually locating Eos (sister of Helios), the goddess tells Kratos that the Titan Atlas has abducted her brother." Makes it sound like the goddess finds Eos (i.e. finds herself).

Rewrote some. How is it now?

- This sentence in the audio section is missing at least one word: "Marino composed roughly thirteen minutes of music for and re-worked other music from the previous titles."

Fixed.

- What do you think about moving the demo portion to the top of the release section, to put things in chronological order?

Okay, if so, Should the section be renamed and have two subsections for demo and release? Or have no subsections and the first paragraph be about the demo, then continue with the other two paragraphs? --JDC808 ♫ 06:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already checked images and spotchecked sources in the last FAC, so I'd be willing to support if all this is taken care of. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the second lead paragraph again, now that I understand what it's saying. As for the challenge mode, maybe change the word "challenges" to "specific tasks" and give an example. For the demo, I'd say pull the sub header and just have all three paragraphs in one section. Other than that, I'd say we're good.

Done. --JDC808 ♫ 17:19, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, pending the last two minor fixes. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:37, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I would like to see a few spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing. Graham Colm (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Doing~~ Sasata (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC) Done Sasata (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's 10 picked at random:

article: "A grab maneuver is also available for use on minor foes that yields a higher proportion of red orbs.[2]"

Source: I couldn't clearly find this. I suppose it's because the game terminology is unfamiliar to me. From what I understand, one get acquire many red orbs by completing the minigame (you know, the one with the two naked women on the pallet), but I can't tell if this is the "grab maneuver" referred to.

Though the scenario you described is true, that is not the "grab maneuver" that is being referred. What it's talking about is that in the game, weaker enemies without armor can be grabbed and ripped apart or beaten. I removed since it's not covered in that source. It may mention it in the instruction manual, but I'll have to check later as it's not with me at the moment.

article: "Game developer Ready at Dawn pitched the idea of a God of War game for the PlayStation Portable to SCEA's Santa Monica Studios.[10]"

source: 500-Internal Service Error

Hm, there weren't any errors when I open it. How would I fix that for you to not receive the error?

article: "In February 2007, Ready at Dawn posted a teaser featuring "PSP" in the Omega symbol with the words "Coming Soon" in the God of War font.[11]"

source: I can't see where it mentions the Omega symbol, the rest is confirmed.

Corrected.

article: "The trailer depicts Kratos in the city of Attica, with a narrative provided by voice actress Linda Hunt."

source: cannot find the word "Attica", the other parts are confirmed.

Removed Attica.

article: "God of War: Chains of Olympus uses a proprietary, in-house engine referred to as the Ready at Dawn engine, which expanded on the engine created for Daxter and including a fluid and cloth simulator."

source: verified & well-paraphrased, but the grammar is poor (which expanded ... and including)

The copy-editor must have missed that. I tried to fix.

article: "As of June 2012, it has sold more than 3.2 million copies worldwide, in addition to 711,737 copies as part of the God of War: Origins Collection.[31]"

source: verified

article: "Matt Leone of 1UP similarly praised developers solution for the control scheme as well as the game's "fantastic" pacing.[38]

source: Status 404 - not available

This one also doesn't have errors for me.

article: "GameTrailers went on to praise the replay value for being able to "bring your powered-up methods of destruction with you."[43]"

source: not verified–clicking on source link brings me to here, which seems to be different than what the citation claims

Fixed.

article: "In IGN's Best of 2008 Awards, the game received the awards for Best PSP Action Game,[47]"

source: verified

article: "with one Ready at Dawn developer stating that preparation of the special demo disc took up to 40% of the team's production time.[17]"

source: verified

General comments:

Checklinks reveals four deadlinks, replacements should be found if possible or text modified if not; consider web-archiving the current good links to avoid future problems.

When I get some more time, I'm going to be web-archiving the sources.

the word "also" is overused; if your browser can do find/highlight all, I think you'll see what I mean.

Removed or changed some. --JDC808 ♫ 16:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --JDC808 ♫ 18:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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