Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World edit

Old Archive
This is my second Self Nomination of this article (and needless to say support), and I think it is finally ready. The only problem in it's previous FAC was that it needed to be well written, which thanks to Deckiller and TKD, it is. It's a good article, and is a great example of this encyclopedia's best work, and deserves featured status.--Clyde Miller 15:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A well researched and concise article. The previous prose issues seem to have been dealt with. - Tutmosis 17:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though, as Clyde mentioned, I've done a fair amount of copyediting. — TKD::Talk 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per TKD. — Deckill e r 17:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as before. JimmyBlackwing 19:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support It meets criteria, and there are tons of references. There just isn't much to it... Tinyboy21 19:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game isn't really well known or well recognized, so there just isn't that much information on it. I'm sorry there isn't a better answer than that.--Clyde Miller 19:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Most possible copyedits are just a matter of taste. Could use some more reference parameters, such as author and date. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I know that subject matter is not relevant to an FA - that any article can be an FA - but frankly, the material here seems really, really thin. This is a personal reaction, I acknowledge fully, but as I was reading "A unit can be ordered to scout, guard, act defensively, or act aggressively. Resources — food, wood, gold, and stone — are required in different combinations to build structures and armies. Throughout the game, citizens gather resources and deposit them in Town Center structures" I was going, uh-huh, ok so what. It may, perhaps, be possible to include content that rises above this kind of prosaic, dull walk-through of a humdrum video game, but this ain't it. Eusebeus 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose is invalid; "It must not be about a 'humdrum' video game" is not in the criteria. — Deckill e r 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Glad to see we have such a diligent guardian of the validity of FA considerations. Many thanks for that nuanced reading of my objection. I never said "It must not be about a 'humdrum' video game"; what I said is that It may, perhaps, be possible to include content that rises above this kind of prosaic, dull walk-through of a humdrum video game, but this ain't it; to paraphrase: the content is slight as it is; this does not mean that better content cannot be derived, and content is the core part of FA. Eusebeus 19:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the entire article as it currently is not just a "dull walkthrough of a humdrum video game"; that is merely one section. The article covers all aspects, including development, gameplay, story/background, reception, and so on. I'm sorry if the gameplay section appears dull to you, but it's important for a FA to be comprehensive. You can't really insert entertaining prose into a gameplay section without introducing redundancies and whatnot. In short, the article covers all aspects of the game based on what general information is available. — Deckill e r 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I find the content of the entire article to be wanting. Eusebeus 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That isn't an actionable objection. Which criterion does it fail? JimmyBlackwing 02:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Game articles have to be written in order to be accessible to a non-gamer audience. Nearly every Good class or above RPG article has the same "characters move around on a field map with an overworld map too" and stuff about attacking, and it can sound a little dull. But it's part of fulfilling comprehensiveness and making it accessible. --Zeality 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do simple years really need to be wikilinked? Gzkn 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are you referring to?--Clyde Miller 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - 950 A.D. to 1900 A.D., which covers the first three ages: the Medieval, Gunpowder and Imperial ages. The other five civilizations roughly cover the years 1900 A.D. to 1950, occurs in the 1590s, and Empires was developed from 2002 to 2003...there may be others. Gzkn 02:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Removed. I'm sorry I didn't know that dates weren't supposed to be linked. Done
Further Comments
- The Japanese are opponents in the game's campaign mode, but they are not playable in the game. and Although the Japanese are opponents in the game's campaign mode, they are never playable. Kind of repetitive, no?
  - Removed. Done
- Kim Shi-min, Kwak Chae-u -> Wikilinks (caption and prose)?
  - Fixed the prose and I hope that red links are okay. Done
- In an interview, Rick Goodman stated If the reader didn't read the infobox, they might not know who Rick Goodman is. Also the quote is pretty general and readers aren't told how his quote relates to the development of the game.
  - fixed up. Is this better? Done
- Might want to link "PC Game World" and "Worthplaying" .
  - Hope red links are okay. Done
- For criticism, GameSpot Not really a big fan of that transition...
  - Done Better?
- The magazine found that the pathfinding algorithm often causes units to travel together in a disorganized mass and sometimes take more dangerous routes than necessary to reach locations, although explicitly constructed unit formations eliminated crowding and lessen friendly fire and interference with the routes of other units. Could this be broken up somehow? Or trimmed? Also, there's a weird change of tense ("eliminated").
  - Done
- "... dumb man's Rise of Nations." ellipsis is probably unnecessary there. Gzkn 02:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done
- The article mentions Rise of Nations several times; I think a link should be added to the "See Also" section.
  - Done I added it to the see also, but I thought you don't add something to the see also if it is wikilinked. If someone can back me up on this, it should be removed.

Reply: I (and Deckiller) took care of the problems. Anything I did wrong or anything that still needs work?--Clyde Miller 03:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Those {{done}} templates are neat...I need to start using them. Regarding the red links: I assumed that they would have articles...darn :( Since they don't at the moment, perhaps an explanatory word/clause of what they are might be better instead of red links (are they web-only game reviewers, magazines?). Gzkn 03:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also changed the transition to "In a negative review". Is that OK (I'm assuming it was a negative review)? Gzkn 03:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that transition works better. — Deckill e r 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I found the {{done}} template on some peer review and I liked it. As to the red links, I could start a stub or add a segment to explain them once I get a chance.--Clyde Miller 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done I added a segment about the red links instead of making articles, because I don't feel like have an FAC and AFD at the same time. Anything else I missed or need to work on?--Clyde Miller 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This has come a long way since I first saw it as it was leading up to GAC, and especially with the changes made in this FAC, I whole-heartedly support. --PresN 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Well cited, clearly explained, and interesting to read. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 18:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. see above.--Clyde Miller 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure (I'm new around here). I just thought that you had compared it several times to Rise of Nations, so it should have a link for being a "comparably similar" game. AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well good enough for me. Stays unless someone finds some policy that says otherwise.--Clyde Miller 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"See also"s are actually discouraged in featured articles, because links should already have appeared in a relevant context elsewhere in the article (as you had originally thought). If the links can't reasonably be integrated into the rest of the text, then it raises the question of whether they're really all that relevant. Remember, FAs are about brilliant prose, so lists should be minimized. I'm also not sure why Age of Empires is in the See also section. If a source compared the two, then that should be mentioned in the article proper. Otherwise, it's not really clear to the reader why the comparison was made between these two games in particular. If the comparison were in the "Reception" section, it'd probably be tagged with {{fact}}, so a link in "See also" is a bad idea unless it's sourced. I'm being bold and removing the "See also" section. — TKD::Talk 02:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I learned something today. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:: shrug :: Alright, I really never thought it was needed anyway.--Clyde Miller 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support per work done in previous nomination. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support But can you add the cumulative Rottentomatoes / Game Rankings scores? And you might try to find some sales figures, but I know how impossible those can be to come by, so don't sweat it. --Zeality 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerankings is citied in the article, and most of the reviews compilied in it are in the article also. Sales figures are impossible to come by with a game that is as little known as this. However, I will keep looking, and will try to find a place to add the compiled scores. I think this is the final response, since Empires has been promoted. --Clyde Miller 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]