Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings

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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:43, 4 October 2008 [1].

---

Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings

Nominator(s): Giggy (talk)

The Age of Kings is arguably the best real-time strategy video game ever made. I've worked on this one a great deal lately as part of the V 0.7 push. It had a fair bit of copyediting done by Pagrashtak and I think it's ready now. Of course I'm happy to act on any comments raised here. Giggy (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment FA is above my ability so I'm not actively participating, but here's a few suggestions which may (or may not) be of relevance:

*Where are the images?

• • I read User:Angr#A parable and found it quite convincing. Since all the reviews linked (heck, most of the pages linked) as sources contain screenshots, I was seeing what reaction going without a screenshot would get. Do you think I should include one? Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*Do single and multiplayer modes need sub-headings? They both look like they would slide onto the end of the main gameplay section, multiplayer in particular is extremely short for a subsection.

• • Merged as suggested. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*I see the acronym RTS being used but it isn't listed in brackets after the first example of 'Real Time Strategy'.

• • Clarified (in lead). Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*"The three human classes of military" (when describing the rock-paper-scissors mechanic) shouldn't that be three classes of infantry? Standard infantry can be referred to as just that in order to separate them from the general infantry class. Using 'human' there almost leads me to expect talk of lizardmen or cat-headed women (whoops, wrong game).

• • I have it that way because that includes archers and cavalry, the latter of which doesn't really fall under infantry. (And because one of the classes is referred to in-game as "infantry", so it could get confusing.) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

*"Resources can be converted to and from gold at the player's market." Resources can be bought or sold for gold at the player's market, causing the market price to fluctuate with every transaction?

• • Done as suggested. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Good luck with the nomination, Congrats and thank you for your work on this important VG article. Someoneanother 00:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking a look :-) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

A comment: my guess is lack of images is due to the fact that there aren't any that are free that could be used appropriately within the article. The one of the cover is OK, but any more are simply decoration, and cannot be used as per our fair use rules. I'll see if I can give this article a look through. AOE rocks! (And yes, my nick is based on the cobra car cheat :D) -- how do you turn this on 00:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that too. Free encyclopedia and all. (Love the username, incidentally ;-).) Giggy (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments ref #31 needs a page number, though otherwise sources look good; links check out with the link checker. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Giggy (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I've done a copy-edit of the article, fixing some awkward phrasings and such. I plan to continue this later. Issues:
  • There are problems with the citation of references, however, specifically with datelinks. If you'll notice, half of the dates appended to the web refs are linked, while the latter-halfish is not. This should be remedied.
  • The section on Buildings section is poorly referenced, but I'm working on that now.

I'll come up with more comments soon. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

All the refs should now be formatted consistently. For the buildings section see my 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC) comment to How do you turn this on. Giggy (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: "Where are all the images" is a long way from "I'm having difficulty visualizing some concepts". I encourage folks to judiciously engage NFCC#8 before adding or suggesting images. If the article can be understood without them, they probably won't be supported. Эlcobbola _talk 01:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• That's fair enough, but considering how many points referred to in the article could be illustrated with a single screenshot, I think there's at least a case for suggesting one. For instance, the graphics themselves are given a lot of scrutiny in regards to their quality, the scale is praised, the formations are praised, a wealth of different units are on offer, the villagers being both genders are discussed. A single image could show a group of misc. units in formation in a walled town, next to a castle or wonder, with villagers working in the background - it wouldn't be decoration, it'd be a visual reference for several aspects of the game specifically highlighted in the article. Whether that's enough or not I'll leave to you guys. Someoneanother 01:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with someone here. A single screenshot could provide a ton of illustrative information if properly framed. If a review screenshot doesn't quite have all the contents you want, I'd go and take a screenshot of the game yourself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've added a screenshot. Giggy (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• "...highly popular Age of Empires..." Is it necessary to say it's highly popular?
  • Not a necessity, so I've removed it. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...The civilizations have varying strengths and weaknesses with regard to..." Should that not be "regards"? (I don't know personally)
  • Fixed. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...Civilian units, called "Villagers"..." Is villagers capitalized?
  • No, fixed. I don't think it's treated as a proper noun in-game. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...There are five campaigns in The Age of Kings, based on historically-based sets of scenarios..." Only three appear to be mentioned... and only briefly. Maybe a brief idea of what happens on each scenario would be good.
  • Uggh. Copyediting hasn't treated that sentence favourably. Improved, hopefully. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• "...Every player has a "population" limit..." Why is population in quotes?
  • Reworded that sentence. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why is Town Center capitalized?
  • It's treated as a proper noun in-game, if memory serves. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
• ..."Extensive cheating in multiplayer games of Age of Empires..." Is cheating supposed to link directly to where it does?
  • Ooh, didn't know we have a Cheating in video games article. Improved link target. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

-- how do you turn this on 12:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've replied inline. Giggy (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I also notice some sections have very sparse citations, and the Units section has only 2, and Buildings only 1. Is everything covered in those references (I had a look at the refs, all seem reliable). -- how do you turn this on 12:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally the gameplay sections are cited to the game itself. Those references are used for stuff that might be a bit more contentious, if I recall (just got on now, yet to look at the comments above in detail). Giggy (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

• Comments (David Fuchs) - "arguably the best real-time strategy video game ever made", emphasis on "arguably", I'm sure the Starcraft fans might disagree :P (then again, I've never been able to win a game without typing in those cheats, so who am I to complain.)
  • Agree that there should be some more sourcing in the gameplay section. Just use the gigantic manual the game comes with.
  • "The sequel to Age of Empires, The Age of Kings continued its historically themed real-time strategy trend." feel this is unnecessary with the earlier paragraph's statements and awkward to boot. Hell the entire second paragraph needs some rephrasing. Why not point out the historical time period (the Middle ages) in the first sentence, and then talk about objectives?
  • No mention of campaign/gametypes in the lead?
• " Some reviewers were critical of the presentation of units, which were seen as bland and uninteresting, others with The Age of Kings' similarity to Age of Empires" the way this is phrased, "others" isn't exactly clear.
• "The game won multiple awards and has had a significant impact on future games in the its genre." Let's play spot the bad word addition!
• more to come... (reply to it all in a block below these, if you please.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, they should all be fixed. But in order... I've lost my copy of the game (snifs) but I'm going to add a bit more sourcing to the gamplay section. The other stuff is reworded/done as suggested. Giggy (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• Like I said, there's the full manual on Replacementdocs, so you shouldn't have any issue citing statements in gameplay. More comments (reply in a block below them, please):
  • "Like many real-time strategy games" - who cares? Just talk about this game.
  • "There are five campaigns in The Age of Kings, each containing" - redundancy
  • "The four major resources" - are there more than four? Last time I checked...
  • "The Age of Kings supports multiplayer over the Internet, or via a LAN" spell out LAN
  • " A multiplayer game can incorporate up to eight players, with all of the single player game modes available. The MSN Gaming Zone supported the game, until the service closed on June 19, 2006. Alternative services, such as GameSpy Arcade, were recommended as a replacement.[9]" Why say 'incorporate'? Why not just state how many players. Also, what about the Mac platform multiplayer (Gameranger?)
  • "Walls and towers are defensive structures and cannot train units. Another type of building available is the Wonder—" Um, that was an abrupt change of subject, especially for the beginning of a paragraph.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again David. All the comments have been resolved. Giggy (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments (adding down here to prevent loss of my remarks from above):
  • Reception and legacy - last paragraph feels very short and disjointed. There are several references to points that I think need expansion. How did the tournament go? Is there anything more that could be said about it? How official is the guidebook really? The three key concepts also seem to be rather unrelated and out-of-place, and seem to constitute a somewhat weak and mispositioned end to the article (I know it requires no true "end", but why are those things in particular mentioned last?)

May be more soonish. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

About the tournament, what's in the article is all I've been able to find. Everything else refers to a tournament for the expansion, The Conquerors. The guidebook, as far as I can see, is "official" in the sense that the game's designer wrote it. He probably knows the game best. I see your point, however, but I, um, don't really have any ideas on what to do to improve it. Do you have any ideas? Giggy (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe integration elsewhere is needed. I'm not sure. I'll keep pondering. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I've integrated it elsewhere. I think it is fine now. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. Great article. However, I suggest a table of civilizations would add more value and information to the article; something like this:

Civilizations in The Age of Kings
Britons	Byzantines
Celts	Chinese
Franks	Goths
Japanese	Mongols
Persians	Saracens
Teutons	Turks
Vikings

And about the images, I'm not knowledgeable about copyrights issues, but I used to see in video game websites tons of screenshots for each game. Did they all get permission to use them? Why isn't the case here? Thank you. Eklipse (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems to be leaning too much towards a game guide, don't you think? With the images, the review websites probably do get permission of some sort from Microsoft/ES. However, we work based on our own non free content criteria and a core aspect of that is to use as little non free material as possible. Hence there isn't a multitude of images. Giggy (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I thought about it; that's why I didn't insert the table right away. The idea came when I was reading article, and it occurred to me to know out of curiosity which civilizations were included. Anyways, It's just a minor suggestion. Eklipse (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• A note: "...is a real-time strategy (RTS) computer game.." - is it not a computer AND video game, considering the PS2 release? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Also: many of the ref names have the term "Age of Kings" in them, but the web titles do not have the italicised form of the game's title. Should they be, or do we not bother with the italicising of web ref titles? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
    • VG stuff clarified. I'm not sure what the deal is with ref titles; I've never italicised them... some do, others don't. I don't know that it matters. Giggy (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support - this article looks to be in pristine condition. Well done Giggy. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Support Leaning toward support by karanacs. I thought this was a well-written article. I am actually a big fan of this game, though, so I may have missed places where there is too much video game terminology. Some comments:

• Should the article mention that a player can have multiple town centers, or is that too much detail?
• Quotes should have a citation at the end of the sentence, even if that means duplicating the reference in subsequent sentences. Check Reception and legacy for issues with this.
• There is no mention of priests/monks. I would consider this a special category of unit that needs it own brief explanation.
• What makes this about.com site a reliable source? Michael Klappenbach. "Age of Empires 2: Age of Kings Game Page". about.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-28. [2]

Karanacs (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Karen. In order; I think the multiple Town Center stuff is probably too much detail (especially when it's not as big a deal in this game as in, say, Age of Mythology). I checked the reception section and fixed one quote/ref issue, let me know if I missed any. I added some info on monks. Re. the source, according to about.com they have experts in their field writing everything up, and Michael Klappenbach has some qualifications. I haven't found much about him, however, elsewhere on the Internet so I've tentatively removed that reference and statement it was sourcing. Let me know if you think the page linked to is enough for reliability. Thanks again for your comments. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think that the about.com is reliable, so I appreciate you taking it off. Good work overall! Karanacs (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• Further comments - David Fuchs
  • "The Age of Kings was to be similar in design to its predecessor, but the design team were careful not to make it too alike. Nonetheless, they attempted to appeal to the vast demographic who played Age of Empires." This doesn't do much for me. Rephrase to be less awkward? The design team was conscious of attempting to capture the broad appeal of the first game without making the game's design too similar" or something.
  • "Because the original AI did not "cheat"," - perhaps a parenthetical would help for non-gamers here, explaining what "cheat" means in this case?
  • "To overcome the other significant objection" - I'm sure there were other objections, so change to "another"
  • "he complained of" - complained about?
  • "It and the trigger system were able to interact, and this was used heavily in the game's campaigns" - passive voice, revise (definitely don't start a sentence with 'it' if you can!)
  • The last sentence of development should be put into a paragraph somewhere.
  • There are some places where refs don't come in the proper progression, e.g. [35][34]. Fix 'em!
  • Ditto with the lone sentence of the reception; doesn't really seem that important, so consider removing.
  • I suggest taking the influence of AoE II and expanding it into a subjection of reception, 'Legacy'. Then, I suggest adding information about the later games in the series, something along the lines of Myst. It doesn't have to be as detailed, but something along those lines.
  • I still think a general gameplay image in the gameplay section would be highly desirable, illustrating the villagers, et al. If you upload it I can write a kickass fair use rationale if you need it :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Most of these are done. The last sentence of development I just removed, it was originally in legacy but it really wasn't doing much anywhere (same with reception). The reception and legacy section (ironically :P) does talk about legacy but I added some extra details as suggested. Not sure on another image; the one being used contains some of the stuff you've asked for (if you want to move it and change the caption a bit, be my guest. The rest should be done. Cheers, Giggy (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Eh, really, I think a better representational image can be found. Also, it's so small as to make identifying game aspects impossible. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Is this the sort of thing you're after? Giggy (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
        • It's far better, yes. You can talk about the female villagers and the lot. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
          • OK, added to the article. To clarify, do you think I should use it and the other screenshot, or just this one (leaning towards just this one)? Giggy (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
            • Yeah, axe the cathedral, it's not really that important. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• support' Ok, that takes care of my issues, I'll support now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
• Support Great game, great article. All issues appear to be fixed. -- how do you turn this on 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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