Content deleted Content added
Tag: |
NegativeMP1 (talk | contribs) →Concerns regarding this articles quality: new section |
||
Line 94:
Please italicize hatnotes per [[WP:ITHAT]], same as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_3&diff=prev&oldid=1163891608 my edit]. [[Special:Contributions/45.164.13.242|45.164.13.242]] ([[User talk:45.164.13.242|talk]]) 00:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> <span style="background-color:#D4ECFF;border-radius:10px;padding:0px 6px"><b>[[User:PlanetJuice|PlanetJuice]]</b></span> ([[User talk:PlanetJuice|talk]] • [[Special:Contribs/PlanetJuice|contribs]]) 01:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
== Concerns regarding this articles quality ==
I'm not going to start an FAR, since this would be the first time concerns are brought up and it's honestly not ''that'' bad, but I've taken a look at this FA from 2008 and I have some concerns regarding quality.
* "The game is considered one of the greatest video games of all time." is not verified in the body. Yes, the list it goes to does list the game, but such a standout claim still needs to be cited here.
* First two paragraphs of Gameplay are unsourced.
* A few sentences going over the basics of what a first-person shooter is wouldn't hurt since this is a very important game to the genre. Something like what is seen over at the fairly recently-promoted ''[[Doom (1993 video game)|Doom]]''
* The Reception section is honestly terrible. There is very little writing and variety of reviews used here, and the Wii reviews section somehow has more than it. I'd understand that if it was something like an indie game, or if the game didn't get many reviews, but that isn't the case here. There's not a lot of variety in opinions, and claims in the lead like "there was criticism of its lack of innovation" is attributed to two sources. Also, the Wii version section just reads weird as a whole. The review scores do not matter,
* Little to no substance in the Legacy section. This is one of the most major games of the seventh generation, and the most influential game in the franchise, there is absolutely material for a couple substantial paragraphs.
* An image showcasing the games graphics could be beneficial, using [[Template:Non-free no reduce]]. I know there was an image here in the past that demonstrated that and I was the one who removed it, but it was already reduced and a bad example in the first place.
* Listing what rating the game was given is irrelevant information unless it was a major part of the games commentary per [[MOS:VG]]. This games age rating did not receive commentary, unlike a game like ''[[Hatred (video game)|Hatred]]''.
* Citing the game itself for some basic facts is ''fine'' I guess, but using it to source nearly an entire paragraph doesn't seem like the best way of handling the gameplay section.
* Ref 28 is not a reliable source. Even if this could be considered a primary source, it's still unreliable at [[WP:RSP]].
Again, not enough to where I'd take it to FAR (someone can later on if they want to), but I don't really think this article is of the highest quality. So I'm leaving this list of issues here with the hopes someone will pick it up in the future, or maybe even me months or years from now if I ever feel competent enough to tackle major subjects like this. <span style="border:#000000;border:2px solid #000000;padding:2px">'''λ''' [[User:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#264e85">'''Negative'''</span>]][[User talk:NegativeMP1|<span style="color:#7d43b5">'''MP1'''</span>]]</span> 05:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
| |||