Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World of Warcraft/archive2
- 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 not promoted 17:10, 24 September 2007.
World of Warcraft edit
Since its last FAC review, the article has improved significantly. Articles have been expanded and references added. If it becomes featured, it will be the first MMO to attain that status. --Hdt83 Chat 01:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. A few issues:
- Prose issues. These are just from the first paragraph of Gameplay:
- the first two sentences of "Gameplay" are about twice as long as they need to be.
- The game rewards success through money, items, and experience, which in turn allow players to improve in skill and power should be "with" rather than "through" and "their skill" rather than "in skill"
- Instances of "in addition" and "also" where they're not required
- Other problems:
- It's distracting when half of your material (sometimes in brackets) is written in a manner like this (where there are lots of brackets).
- The "character" section seems completely unnecessary and could easily be merged somewhere else in the article
- Too much in-game material. A lot of it segways from a summary of the topic to user manual-like details. We don't need to know how to interact with NPCs, or every profession in the game, or what colours indicate rarity. The "cities" and "villages and outposts" sections seem completely unnecessary. Basically, the gameplay section needs to be cut in half. I recommend a copyedit and re-examination of all the material- try to examine the relevance of the material: the material should matter to people who do not play the game.-Wafulz 03:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, I agree with most of the problems Wafulz pointed out. General prose issues and too much in-game material. I'd also like to see the rest of the in-line citations cited properly, a lot of them right now are just a simple URL. Sebi [talk] 05:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose—I see links to disambiguation pages. For example, in "also called NPCs—non-player characters", the word "NPC" is linked (a dab page) instead of "non-player character". The infobox should use {{Vgrelease}} (or similar) instead of flags. References have red-linked dates due to improper formatting, and many refs are missing information (such as publisher and accessdate) that prevent the reader from judging their merit. The article seems to be too heavy on the description of the mechanics of the game; I don't see a "Development" or "Reception" section, typical mainstays of quality VG articles, and this article could use both. Pagrashtak 15:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.