Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War (video game)/archive4
- 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 10:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]
God of War (video game) edit
God of War (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is ready. Since the last nomination's closure two weeks ago, the article has had a reorganization and edits to the prose. In the second nomination, the article received an extensive source review (nothing has changed in regards to sources). All previous reviewers have been notified of this nomination and I encourage new reviewers to have a look. --JDC808 ♫ 20:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per original support in Archive 2. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - as per Archive 2. Hope the article should be ready. — Hounder4 13:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Although, I'm not sure if my vote still counts. I think a delegate at the previous FAC brought some issues regarding canvassing.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC). I must say, I especially liked how the article is accessible and easily readable for readers who are not familiar with the material. In particular, the lede/intro section is written quite well indeed. I was able to quickly understand the nature of the game and its plot and feel like I had enough background to follow along with more detailed plot descriptions and analysis later in the article. I know this grounding for the reader with context and background material is not always easily accomplished, but in this case it was done well. In addition, the article is meticulously sourced and cited appropriately throughout. It provides broad coverage of its subject matter and a significant amount of Reception from a good smattering of secondary sources. One hopes that the quality of this article might serve to encourage readers to learn more and educate themselves about the actual history the storyline is based on. Thank you for your contributions to quality improvement of this article on Wikipedia. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support More than passes the bar. Well referenced (spot check is successful), nicely written, and handles POV matters quite well. A slight note: I really think it should include a small sentence in reception about the "other side's" opinion on the QTE, since it really was the rebirth of that mechanic in this genre and some weren't so happy about it (undue weight would dictate a small mention). Yes, it is kind of nitpick... Ryan Norton 07:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Indeed. I've read this countless times and I still think it's ready. — ΛΧΣ21 16:32, 6 May 2013 (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. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]