Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin/1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Concerns addressed and resolved. No other concerns with the article noted. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Taken from my points on the main talk page of the article)

This article hasn't been assessed for GA article status since 2008. Having expanded and the standards for GA having risen since then, I feel that the time is right for this article to be assessed to see if this article still meets the criteria. In the meantime, here are some things that I have noted so far.

• The lead has no information on the game's development despite there being ample enough info to include.
• The lead doesn't do a good job at illustrating the gameplay and plot.
• Gameplay section is seemingly very messy -
  • It goes into seemingly too much detail about the game's enemies.
  • On top of that, it mentions the games endings in too much detail for something that should probably be reserved for the plot section.
  • The "Alternate Modes" and "Nintendo Wi-Fi" subsections aren't necessary as their contents can seemingly be shortened and added to the main section with no real issue.
  • Alternate Modes subsection has a majority of it in bullet points. Need I say more.
• The plot section is too long and somewhat messy in writing in places.
• The development section is decently well written, but there is a citation needed symbol and the Audio subsection feels sort of iffy to me.
• Reception section might need to be rewritten. Definitely work in or remove the final line of the section though as it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the text in the section.
• Some References, such as the Brady Games strategy guide, seem unfit for this article. Also, one of the sources isn't formatted properly.

Any additional points to be addressed are very much appreciated COOPER COOL 23 user page 19:36, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More points can be added here once a week of no commentary occurs on the main talk page.

@CooperCool23: I agree with most of your review. Here are some points that I have a different opinion about or questions for clarification:

• The existence of the subsections seem appropriate based on what I remember of the coverage. Though I do conceded that if they are condensed, a smaller amount of prose wouldn't warrant a subsection. I guess wait and see until after changes are made.
• Why is the Brady Game strategy guide unfit? It's an official guide made in collaboration with Konami, the developer, and is being used to source gameplay. Also, any other sources you feel are unfit?
• I fixed the Nintendo Power source with the missing information.

I'll see how much I can help out with and start making edits as time allows. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Guyinblack25 in regards to your comment about sources, I didn't know that official strategy guides could be used when citing gameplay so that is my fault. That, and I think I was just skimming through the list of references in the article and thought that I saw ones that were out of place (I think I also mistook that the "official" in the Brady Games source wasn't there...some how (don't ask)). I have now also done and double checked all the sources together with Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and the article and can now say for certain that none of the sources seem to be unfit or unreliable for the article. Hope that clears some things up. COOPER COOL 23 user page 20:55, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

👍 (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Starting a discussion about the cover art caption to avoid back and forth reverts. I've seen that trend before and always change it because it is outside Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions, image captions do not have to be short and should not be so short that they omit useful information to the reader. The term the MoS uses is "succinct", which means don't use ten words when five or six will do.

• "Succinctness is using no superfluous or needless words. It is not the same as brevity, which is using a relatively small number of words. Succinct captions have more power than verbose ones."

Other points in the MoS that apply here are

• "The caption should lead the reader into the article."
• "While a short caption is often appropriate, if it might be seen as trivial (People playing Monopoly), consider extending it so that it adds value to the image and is related more logically to the surrounding text (A product of the Great Depression, Monopoly continues to be played today.)."
• The special situation section of that MoS (MOS:CAPLENGTH) includes a video game cover as an example of a full-sentence caption in the infobox, citing Bioshock Infinite: "BioShock Infinite gives an example of an informative yet brief full-sentence caption describing the key element (the singular protagonist) depicted and its relationship to the article's subject."

While I agree the caption itself does not need to mention that the characters are new to the series, this is the only visual information in the article that depicts what the two characters (who are mentioned prominently) look like as the screenshot uses only tiny pixel sprites. Identifying them by name and connecting that to visual information helps most readers process and retain information. Basically, treating the caption as only a label is a missed opportunity to enrich the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Update - there are some places that could use some polish and there are probably a few more rabbit holes I could dive into for content, but I'm basically done with my improvements. If someone could review/copy edit the whole article, that would be helpful. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:14, 19 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@CooperCool23: checking in to see if the improvements are sufficient to close the GAR. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 01:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC))[reply]

@Guyinblack25: Most of what I majorly disliked about the article has been fixed and all the sources seem to be formatted properly. I'm willing to say that the GAR can be closed now. COOPER COOL 23 user page 02:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]