Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:02, 7 August 2009 [1].
The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II edit
Review commentary edit
- Notified User:Theleftorium, User:Gary King, Wikipedia:WikiProject Strategy games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, Wikipedia:WikiProject Xbox
Violation of 1.C.
Citations do not match the content provided in the article from top to bottom. Issue was first raised by myself here with follow ups here. I have performed a cursory check of -every- cited section and have found inconsistencies and statements that are far from what the sources state. The most egregious comes in the form of this:
Electronic Arts added new battles to the story, and introduced original characters to the game, such as Gorkil the Goblin King. Some characters were altered in their appearances, abilities, and roles; for instance, a combat role in the game is given to Tom Bombadil, a merry hermit from The Lord of the Rings.[9]
which is cited to: "Tolkien, J. R. R. (1954), The Fellowship of the Ring, The Lord of the Rings, Boston: Houghton Mifflin (published 1987), "The Old Forest", ISBN 0-395-08254-4". It is 100% unacceptable to think a 1954 book is a reliable source for information on Electronic Arts or that such information would not fail WP:V and WP:OR. The whole article is contaminated and every single line and source will need to have to be rechecked and compared to the original language to ensure that the citations actually match everything cited. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with OR's assessment after looking at the article. This issue appears to have escaped us at FAC. It is quite serious and an audit of each source is going to be needed.--Laser brain (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concern are citations/accuracy of source agreement. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The offending material listed above has been removed, but a more thorough check would have to be made to see if everything is clean. This suggests a set of new references for the more detail list of problems that was provided to Theleftorium before. My opinion is neutral as of this moment (it was previously de-list). Ottava Rima (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to try and take a look through at least some of the new refs and see if they match up. Hopefully I'll be done by tomorrow and will fill in here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Discrepancy: "Some characters were altered in their appearances, abilities, and roles; for instance, a combat role in the game is given to Tom Bombadil," is sourced to [2], but no mention is made anywhere in the document. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. As you can see, ref #9 and #10 are duplicates. I was actually supposed to used this to source the Tom Bombadil statement, but I mixed up the links when I was adding them article. It's been fixed now. (Note: I will be be gone tomorrow and won't be able to respond to any comments until Friday.) Theleftorium 19:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Discrepancy: "Some characters were altered in their appearances, abilities, and roles; for instance, a combat role in the game is given to Tom Bombadil," is sourced to [2], but no mention is made anywhere in the document. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to try and take a look through at least some of the new refs and see if they match up. Hopefully I'll be done by tomorrow and will fill in here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's the status of this? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I will go through the article again today to see if there's any original research left. Theleftorium 09:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some more original research but I added sources to back it up. I've checked pretty much the whole article now and I can't find any more problems with it (though it's possible I might have missed something, so feel free to check). :) Theleftorium 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest asking David, Ottava, and LB to check to make sure their concerns are resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ottava has indicated that his concerns have been resolved. I left a message at David Fuch's talk page, too. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From my checks I believe the concerns about OR and citations have been addressed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ottava has indicated that his concerns have been resolved. I left a message at David Fuch's talk page, too. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest asking David, Ottava, and LB to check to make sure their concerns are resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found some more original research but I added sources to back it up. I've checked pretty much the whole article now and I can't find any more problems with it (though it's possible I might have missed something, so feel free to check). :) Theleftorium 14:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Alternative text for images has been added. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Let me state outright that I've never been a fan of video game articles because they're forced to rely so much on non-objective reviews and possibly unreliable Internet citations. That said, this article appears to follow the FA criteria. It's adequately cited, and while a quick copy edit fixed a few things, there's no big problems with article prose. I'd suggest someone do a detailed cleanup of any remaining elements of BritEng (the majority of the article was written in AmEng, so that's what I edited to). Other than that, the pictures are adequately backed up, and everything looks OK to me. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Original concerns have been addressed, and nothing else has arisen. Besides the now-resolved OR, I'm fairly confident this meets FA standards in other areas, as this was a late 2008 promotion (disclosure: I reviewed and supported this at the FAC). Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.