Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 3/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 20:06, 28 November 2007.
Halo 3 edit
(previous FAC) - Seeing as no one posed any comments/concerns, renom'ing. David Fuchs (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, coincidentally, I had guests for Thanksgiving who, when reading this entry as they were playing Halo 3, said that "the plot summary was incoherent" and that it "appeared to be written by someone who didn't know anything about Halo". Please don't shoot the messenger; it's just a coincidence that this came up at my house yesterday, and I know nothing about Halo.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cocks rifle I'll take a look... ;) David Fuchs (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Same guests had a look at more recent version, and are no longer concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support well sourced, written, etc., and the plot section seems fine to me. Well done to the editors responsible. :) Miremare 01:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose.
The "features" section is written as a game guide, something Wikipedia is not. Please merge it with the gameplay section. Sure, these three features are notable and should be described, but this amount of detail borders advertising.The gameplay section makes use of gaming jargon, something to be avoided. Examples to ctrl-f and solve: "starting weapon", "campaign scoring mode", "headshot", "improving enemy behavior", "versus match", "matchmaking facilities", "playlist", "rank" (in multiplayer - what is it?), "player's profiles", "game object", "gametype", "spawn", " Other jargon is there, but wikilinked. However, some of these linked articles do not explain the term adequately in its context in this article. Examples: A.I., pack mentality, meta-game.Some of the claims in gameplay about the intentions and uses of certain gameplay items need sources. The whole analysis on why TrueSkill is as it is is OR. The "vehicular component" is apparently "strong" - who says so?- In gameplay, the prose gets really repetitive when a lot of the sentences start with "Players ..." - not "engaging prose".
The setting and character sections throw out a lot of wikilinked names that the reader is expected to know, apparently. What is a Halo? What is the Flood? Who is master chief? Who is the arbiter? (insert all other returning characters here) Reading these two sections alone does not enable the reader to understand the Plot section. I will leave discussing that section to someone who has actually played a Halo game.Development is solid, but lacks images. This is one of the FA criteria.The information on pre-orders in Sales is not verifiable.
- That's it for now. User:Krator (t c) 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've merged the features, expounded upon the jargon, and sourced the statement in Sales I assume you were talking about. I will work on cleaning out redundancies in prose and making the synopsis setting more newb-friendly. However, if you could kindly explain to me why we must have an image in development? David Fuchs (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Of note, for the development image, would a screenshot of one of the ViDocs or perhaps one of the storyboard images provided by bungie work for FA criteria? ♦TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 03:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above is an excellent suggestion for an image. David Fuchs, feel free to strike out parts of my rationale above when you have fixed those parts. User:Krator (t c) 11:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've merged the features, expounded upon the jargon, and sourced the statement in Sales I assume you were talking about. I will work on cleaning out redundancies in prose and making the synopsis setting more newb-friendly. However, if you could kindly explain to me why we must have an image in development? David Fuchs (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Krator. Referencing is not FA standard, article has a lot of fancruft and prose needs improving. --Kaypoh (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Krator. Article seems much too long in general and I feel like the gameplay section could be reduced without the subheadings and still include the same amount of information. Some of the prose is really repetitive and is a pain to read. Zemalia (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point to specific examples? David Fuchs (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The plot section in particular seems very in-universe and is very confusing to non-players. Perhaps less plot detail, more explanation. Some of the wording in the audio section is off, as well as the gameplay (too many simple sentances making to difficult to read prose). Also, there is an entire article for the marketing of the game, but it seems like the info is overdone in the Halo 3 article.
Awards section needs to be converted from a list to prose.Hope that's a bit more helpful, but I feel Krator already provided a lot of input. Zemalia (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The plot section in particular seems very in-universe and is very confusing to non-players. Perhaps less plot detail, more explanation. Some of the wording in the audio section is off, as well as the gameplay (too many simple sentances making to difficult to read prose). Also, there is an entire article for the marketing of the game, but it seems like the info is overdone in the Halo 3 article.
- The intro is a bit winded. Lots of detail into how many units, how much it made, etc. but nothing about reception. Did it open to thunderous and universal praise? Discord and disdain? I just checked, and it's strange: Halo: Combat Evolved does lead off with a paragraph on the game's reception, while Halo 2 only talks about the new engine. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To all concerns above: I've redone the Synopsis section, with an expanded introduction- is this more clear? I've also added info about the reception to the lead, added a development image, and the Marketing section has been cut down. David Fuchs (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Methinks that five non-free images is pushing it a bit. Are two images necessary to illustrate the plot? And Image:High Ground Gate.jpg seems a bit out there; at least it's my opinion that, while it illustrates the multiplayer element, my understanding is not significantly degraded if the image was not there. Also what are rating points, and how are they awarded? hbdragon88 (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Killed the multiplayer image; as for rating points, I wikilinked them to Xbox Live#TrueSkill and clarified that the points were connected to your wins/leaving. David Fuchs (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're going to comment on fair use images, I think we should have images detailing the new features Halo 3 brings. Such as the Film sharing UI, the new vehicles, equipment, support weapons and Forge. They'd serve the article a lot better than generic show screenshots such as Image:Halo3 campaign ss.png and Image:Masterchief company h3.png. And could we have at least one screenshot of a decent resolution? Fair use on Wikipedia specifies low resolution copies, but to give an indication of the graphical fidelity in game, you need higher resolutions. 360 lines of vertical resolution would do, and that would still only be a quarter of the original size. - hahnchen 19:38, 27 November 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.
