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 via FACBot (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2017 [1].

---

Nominator(s): Freikorp (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the best selling video game in the Resident Evil series. Article is GA, has received a peer review and a copy-edit from the guild of copy-editors. Freikorp (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with this article. I support this nomination and good luck with getting it promoted in the future. I hope this receives more traffic in the future. Aoba47 (talk)

Thanks for addressing them. I've read through the article again and am happy that all of my points have been dealt with, so I'm glad to lend my support here. Well done! JAGUAR  13:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My review is done. I've checked all of the refs, and those were all of the issues I could find, albeit minor ones. The sources in the reception section are flawless as they match the content perfectly, and I couldn't find any other issues anywhere. Overall this is a solid article and once all of those minor issues are addressed I'll be happy to support again on the sourcing. JAGUAR  20:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All issues replied to. :) Freikorp (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing them! I will support on the sourcing side of things. Everything checks out for me. JAGUAR  21:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It definately makes more sense now. I have to say, great work on the article. It was one my first RE games so it's nice to see it in such a good condition. I definately support its promotion to FA-status. PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have three supports here, but I'm not quite seeing the depth of review that we really need. PanagiotisZois looks to have given this a fairly good review on content and accuracy, we have a check of the sources from Jaguar, and general comments from the other reviewer. I don't think we have an in-depth prose review yet (and I might ask a few people myself if no-one comes forward) and I would like some assurance that we are fully representing the literature and the article is comprehensive (i.e. a little more on criteria 1a, 1b and 1c). Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarastro1. Thanks for your comment. I've contacted a couple editors myself seeking the kind of review you are after but haven't had any luck as of yet. if you could ask someone for one I would appreciate it. Freikorp (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Sarastro1. So we now have a support on prose, though no additional review on content. Where do we go from here? Will this FAC stay open until it gets another review, or are you satisfied it has enough support? I ask as if it needs a further reviewer I will embark on another attempt to find one, though I'm not confident it will have any more success than my last attempt. Freikorp (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This won't be archived any time soon, so you are quite safe taking your time. I think Dank has covered prose, but I still would like more commentary on 1b and 1c. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorp asked me to take a look at this for 1.b and 1.c concerns, since I have my own FAC up (Homeworld).

• Development sources you're not using may not have seen - [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] - these may not all have new information, but I suspect it's actually the opposite, given that the development section right now is primarily "who did what" and technical decisions, not artistic ones.

 Done: The first source there is already used in the article. I've added some new information from the other four you provided.

• Your reception table includes both Metacritic and Gamerankings; the template discourages using Gamerankings for modern games, as the scores are generally identical to Metacritic- and indeed, here it's just a few percentage points off.

 Done

• Similarly, it's recommended to only put 7-8 scores in the table, even if you use more in prose- you have 9, which is close enough, but I'd personally recommend cutting either Game Revolution, X-Play, or both.

 Partly done: I've cut X-Play. Just out of curiosity, is there any reason why you suggested cutting these two in particular?

• I'm not personally a fan of the depth of the reception section- each paragraph is: Topic Sentence, 2-3 sentences from 3-4 reviews about that game aspect; Topic sentence, 2-3 sentence from 3-4 (generally different) reviews, done. Eurogamer and Game Informer are the only reviews to be used twice. I'd like to see the sources used for more than a single pull quote/paraphrase, even if they're in agreement with each other.

 Partly done: That format was actually reccomended by another reviewer. I have, however, used another two reviews a second time now.

• Except, of course, for the thesis paragraph ("Although the game was praised..."), which I really don't like, cited or no- you basically have a mini-lead for the reception subsection, and then expand on that lead for the next 3 paragraphs. It's pretty clunky. Frankly, that whole paragraph should go, and the award sentence should be expanded.

 Done

• The awards should be expanded with: Award for Excellence at Japan Game Awards, AIAS and G.A.N.G. nominations. If you don't want to add those, the sentence should be combined with the Sales subsection

 Done: The awards paragraph grew big enough that I thought it warranted its own sub-section. Let me know if you don't think that was a good idea.

• The "Allegations of Racism" section is crossing the line into editorializing, in my opinion. Mainly because of the long "congenital retardation" quote- that frankly comes across as overly dismissive and rather childish. If you want a better counter piece, use this IGN pre-release one, where she talks about different cultural perceptions being the root of the controversy, saying that the objective scenes and actions aren't racist, and also wouldn't be perceived as such in cultures that don't have a historical sensitivity to images like them.

 Done: I've drastically shortened the editorialising and have expanded the coverage to include the new source you have provided.

No concerns in the unmentioned sections about source use or comprehensiveness. --PresN 18:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comments PresN. I'll start working on these issues. Freikorp (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to address everything PresN. Take a look and let me know what you think. Freikorp (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support on 1.b and 1.c. --PresN 18:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we do something for the non-specialist here? For example, in the first paragraph of "Gameplay", I see "in addition to melee attack", "to evade enemies" (without specifying who these enemies are" and "boss battles". These need explaining, or linking at the very least. Also, is it standard practice to have "gameplay" before "plot"? Someone who has no idea what this is all about probably wants to know what the aim and plot of the game are before they discover how to play it. For me, reversing the order makes sense, unless there is any great need to do it this way, or if that is the standard format for games. Also, watch out for close repetition of words; I cleared up one, but there is also "Despite initial concern that a second player would dampen the game's tension and horror, it was later realized that a second player could increase tension in situations where one player had to be rescued." Sarastro1 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay comes before plot in most cases, because gameplay is the core of what a game is. Unless the gameplay is more easily understood if the section order is reversed, it should come first.--IDV^talk 12:41, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think the gameplay needs a bit of work to give it context, or we are told how to play the game before we know what the game is. For example, the gameplay section in the just-promoted Donkey Kong 64 explains the aim of the game too. Not to say that this should be copied, but I think we are assuming a level of knowledge in our reader that might not exist. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reworded the sentence you pointed out Sarastro1. It was one of the few sentences that were added after the article was copyedited, in order to address other reviewer concerns. Copyediting has never been my strong suit.

I've wikilinked boss battles, and reworded it to introduce it better. I've also wikilniked 'melee'. I've added a sentence explaining what enemies are being fought. I've described the typical enemies as 'infected villagers'; this raises the question of what they are infected with, but that is covered later on. Let me know if you think I need to expand on this. Freikorp (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I'm still not convinced. It makes little sense to me to discuss the characters and the aim of killing enemies without first establishing who those characters are, or why they are fighting. I'm no video game person at all, so maybe it's just me, but it seems counterintuitive. I might ask a couple of people to take a look, for my own peace of mind, before I promote this. Also, the prose still looks like it needs a little massaging. For example: "Takeuchi said that the decision to have both screens in their original 16:9 ratio in split-screen' mode was influenced by a desire to avoid stacking the screens, which might be distracting, and the restriction on simultaneously moving and shooting was retained to increase player tension with the inability to move freely." Aside from the fact that I'm afraid this makes no sense at all to me, we have more repetition within one sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded that sentence to have less repetition and make it easier to understand (The issue is introduced with this sentence in the Gameplay section: "Split-screen mode presents the game in two windows with the wide-screen proportions of one-player mode, rather than splitting the screen in two, and the entire screen is not utilized"). I believe the format I've used meets the generally standard for video game articles, so it might be best to ask someone else's opinion regarding the other issue. Freikorp (talk) 23:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I have scanned through the prose and no ungainly clangers jump out at me. In terms of flow, the only thing I would do is move descriptors of Redfield and Alomar to their first mention (in Gameplay) and just use their surnames at the subsequent section in Plot. Then I think it is okay. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for your comments. Freikorp (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm copyediting as I go; please revert as needed.

• "was first announced in 2005" -- isn't "first" redundant here?  Done
• Suggest linking or footnoting "checkpoint" for readers unfamiliar with game terminology.  Done
• "Split-screen mode presents the game in two windows with the wide-screen proportions of one-player mode, rather than splitting the screen in two, and the entire screen is not utilized." I don't follow this; can you clarify?

  Right. So normally when you play a two player video game the screen is cut in half; one player's view is the top half of the screen and the others is the bottom. This game was quite unique at the time in choosing not to do that. Instead of splitting the screen in two, they retained the widescreen format for each player, which resulted in two views, each of which was significantly smaller than half the screen. So basically there were two windows within the entire screen with a whole lot of black space around each as a TV isn't designed to display two widescreen images; each widescreen image had to be reduced to fit, resulting in leftover space. Does that make sense?

  That helps; and a quick Google finds some representative images that make it completely clear. I think you could justify a fair-use image to explain this, if you wanted to. It's a hard thing to explain in words. How about "In split-screen mode, one player's viewpoint is presented in the top half of the screen, and the other in the bottom half, but each viewpoint is presented in widescreen format, rather than using the full width of the screen, resulting in unused space to the left and right of the two windows."? Or an image would make it immediately obvious. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added your explanation, which is better, and I've also replaced the previous image with one showing co-operative gameplay. Freikorp (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In the plot section, why is Excella Gionne referred to by her first name, but Albert Wesker by his last name? And why is it Alomar and Jill, not Alomar and Valentine or Sheva and Jill? I would think last names would be standard for a third-person description.  Done
• "Redfield and Alomar follow Wesker to a bomber loaded with missiles containing the Uroboros virus, injecting him with additional doses...Furious‚ Wesker exposes himself to Uroboros": if they injected him with additional doses, surely he's already exposed himself to Uroboros?

The additional doses mentioned are not of Uroboros. I've clarified what they are.

• "In February 2007, members of Capcom's Clover Studio were asked to help develop the game; many of the studio's developers instead worked on Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, which debuted for the Wii." Not sure I follow -- this sounds like the developers turned down the request, but surely that's not right.

No that's not right. Reworded to clarify.

• "created the in-game files": what is an in-game file?

No idea, come to think of it. Another editor added that. I've just removed it.

• Given that Takeuchi was the producer, I don't think you need to attribute him inline for a couple of the statements in the development section; the citation is good enough. You could just say "The decision to retain..." and "The restriction on simultaneously...."  Done
• "helped her get the role of Alomar": suggest "win the role", since "get" also means "understand", which is how I parsed this when I first read it.  Done
• "shown at the Captivate 08 media summit": I see from the in-article comment that the sources don't give any further explanation of this. I'd just cut it in that case, as we don't really know what it means or how important it is; or else find other sources so we can link or explain this.

Removed it.

• "Capcom also confirmed a way around limitations in the Gold Edition release for Steamworks, which returns support for DirectX 10 and Nvidia 3D Vision, as seen in the Games for Windows Live version": I don't know what this means.

I've reworded it to be clearer.

• In the critical response section, do we need the reviewers' names and publications attached to every comment? It really breaks up the flow for the reader. For example, I think in the first paragraph you could say "The gameplay was described as exhilarating and frantic, with a surprisingly high replay value." If the reviewer's name or publication is particularly prominent in the field it might be worth noting, but if not, I think most readers would prefer to see those details in the footnotes rather than interrupting the text. It might also be worth including the reviewer's name where you're including a lot of material from one reviewer, such as in paragraph three, where three consecutive sentences refer to Mielke's review. Direct quotes are also sometimes (but not always) naturally attributed inline.

  Every other reviewer seems to have a significantly different opinion on how the reception section should be stylised. That's the way I was advised to do it by someone else.

  I agree this is a pretty standard reception section, as good as most other video game FAs. I'm not going to oppose over it, but I think it could be much improved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "criticized several inconsistencies in the game, such as the ability to interact with objects and use cover": I don't follow; what's the inconsistency?

For example, the player may be prompted to use, say, a low wall as cover at one point, yet the game may not allow the player to use another similar wall as cover later on. I've reworded this to explain it better.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mike Christie. Thanks for your comments. I've replied to each of your concerns. Freikorp (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support. I think the reception section is weak, but I don't want to withhold support since I am in a minority on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video games ... aren't my specialist subject, but I was asked to cast an eye over this so let's see...

• The first thing that jumps out at me is the dates in the opening sentences. I'd expect to see the year it was released in the first sentence and certainly before you mention the announcement date, which is four years earlier.  Done
• making it the franchise's best-selling individual game and also the best-selling Capcom game of all time is a little awkward. First of all, the construction "and also" should be burnt with fire. Second, do you really need "of all time" and "individual game"? How about re-phrasing it to make the game the subject of the sentence, a la is Capcom's best-selling game [of all time] and the best-selling of the Resident Evil franchise or something like that?  Done
• players can upgrade weapons with money Are we talking about game money (rewards earnt by completing tasks etc) or in-game purchases?

  Specified that it is money found in game.

• This might be heresy, but have you considered putting the plot section first (ie swapping "plot" and "gameplay")? As things are, I'm wondering why I'm attacking infected villagers (And what they're infected with) etc.  Done

  Normally this is the accepted order for video games but considering you're the second person to say that I'll swap it.

• What does equipping of weapons and items in real time during gameplay mean?

  In a lot of video games you could just pause the game, bring up your inventory, and change weapons. In this game, you can't do anything like that. Reconfiguring your equipment/inventory most be done in 'real-time' during gameplay. This changes the strategy of gameplay. For example, in a different game if an enemy was charging at you and the weapon you were currently holding was ineffective against them, you could just pause and swap weapons. In this game, it might take several seconds of gameplay to do that, so you may have to choose to run instead as there wouldn't be enough time to change weapons before your enemy closes the distance. Does that make sense?

• Special Tactics and Rescue Service (STARS) member and now part of the Bioterrorism Security Assessment Alliance (BSAA) I assume these are fictional agencies? Can we add that adjective in there somewhere just for the avoidance of doubt?  Done
• his new partner I was going to ask what you meant by new but I see from her article that Sheva Alomar was introduced in this game, so perhaps say that?  Done
• there is an option to make Alomar the primary character Does this make any difference to the gameplay? almost certainly too much detail for the article unless there's a major difference, but indulge my curiosity!

  If I recall correctly, no. Sheva and Chris are together the entire game anyway and physically I don't think there was anything one could do that the other couldn't. That being said, I haven't played this game since 2010. :)

• local player Since this is contrasting with "online", I assume it means "in the same room"? Can we say something like that instead?

  Ive changed it to 'with a second player using the same console' - is that OK?

• deliberately separated during gameplay [...] can trade items during gameplay Undesirable repetition. Zapping the first "during gameplay" might solve the problem.  Done
• Wesker announces over the ship's intercom that he has betrayed and infected Gionne with Uroboros suggest Wesker announces over the ship's intercom that he has betrayed Gionne and infected her with Uroboros  Done
• it was later realized that this could actually increase such factors due to situations where one player had to be rescued is not at all professional-standard prose and needs a rewrite (especially due to situations...

  Yep, that was written by me after the copy-edit to address another reviewers' concerns. I am not good at professional standard prose. I've removed 'due to situations'. If there are additional problems you're going to have to point them out to me.

• The decision to retain wide-screen proportions in two-player mode was made to avoid having the the first player's screen directly on top of the second, which might be distracting So you're saying that the screen is split horizontally, and that there is black space around the two players' parts of the screen? (I agree with Mike that a photo would instantly make this clearer)

  Yes that's correct. I've uploaded a new version of the main image to show this. From experience, this may take a day to update properly on all browsers.

• cited the film Black Hawk Down and his experience working on Lost Planet: Extreme Condition as influences In what way? Is this related to the increased tension mentioned in the previous sentence, or is it something different?

  Specified this.

• version 1.4 of Capcom's MT Framework engine,[1] with scenes recorded by motion capture The comma implies that there's a relationship between the two facts (is there?), and "with" is a sloppy way to join two halves of a sentence. I highly recommend Tony's guide for this (User:Tony1/How to improve your writing#Sentences, scroll down a bit to "Two poorly used additives on WP").

  I think I've fixed this.

• principal composer, with additional music by see what I just said about "with"  Done
• The composer's Do you mean Suzuki? If so, just say so. If not, who? It's not clear from the context because you've just mentioned three other people.

  I've just removed 'composer's' entirely as I'm not sure who it was specifically referring to.

• Resident Evil 5 was announced by Capcom Try to use the active voice (Capcom annnounced rather than announced by Capcom wherever possible.  Done
• Can we spell out E3 on its first mention?  Done
• Try to group references at the end of sentences or paragraphs wherever possible for readability.

  Are you sure? What if one source only backs up part of the sentence?

• Do we need the exact dates of all the releases of the demo version in different locations?

  No, we don't. What do you suggest I replace them with? Just the month?

• the two consoles, with over 1.8 million "with" again

  Reworded.

• it was announced that a competitive multiplayer mode called Versus would be available Announced by whom? And use the active voice if possible.

  Specified it was Capcom

• I agree with Mike again that the critical response section is choppy, with lots of short quotes and "reviewer X from publication Y said...". Maybe you could go with something like Joe Bloggs, Jane Smith, and John Hancock praised X; Bloggs called it Y and Smith called it Y?

  Yeah, I get it. The reception section could be better. I feel like that's going to take me a lot of time, and I've already spent more time than I anticipated addressing FAC concerns here this weekend. Its cut a lot into my real world commitments. Can we leave this till last? As in, can you go through all my other replies and make sure your concerns have been satisfied, and then I'll have a look at this if you can't support the nomination without this section being reworked? Thanks.

• horror shooter," Generally, punctuation should go outside the quote marks (MOS:LQ); check these throughout the section

  I've removed that instance. I believe all the terminal periods in this section were present in the original material.

• However, he concluded that despite Don't use five words where one will do; just snip the first four.  Done
• 'Reed also criticized aspects of the controls Not a big deal but can we avoid using "aspects" twice in quick succession?  Done
• Whitehead stated that We can do better than "stated", surely?

  Changed to 'said'.

Sorry to come in with a long list like this late in the day. There's a little bit of work to do here, but most of it is relatively simple, and a lot of these are fairly common issues (some of them I only learnt about from having my own writing criticised). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HJ Mitchell. I've made a reply to everything, take a look through it all and let me know how I'm going. Freikorp (talk) 09:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with the edits you've made. The only outstanding point of any significance is the reception section. That could be improved, but it's fairly typical of featured articles on similar topics, so it would be unfair to single yours out, and I feel we can overlook one or two flaws in the prose for otherwise exceptional articles. Thus, support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't spot an image review above but, checking them myself, licensing looks to be in order so I think we can finally wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[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) 08:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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