Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo Wars/archive1

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 Karanacs 22:16, 7 July 2009 [1].

---

Halo Wars

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Halo Wars/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all criteria. Some introductory explanations:

• Regarding Lady Ealdgyth's source comments at Talk:Halo Wars#Sources_pre_FAC:
• WorthPlaying.com: besides being an interview; the author is Rainier Van Autrijve, the content manager/editor of the site. Autrijve has also written extensively for GameSpy (e.g., [2]). For the site itself, it is listed as a good source by Cool Careers Without College for People Who Love Video Games (Rosen Publishing: 2007), not sure how much that counts for. They are also referenced by other sites, I could find [3] for example.
• Kotaku: I figured why defend the authors, and so replaced them with references from TeamXbox.

Cheers, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comments-
• I'm on the fence about the worth playing. I'd like to see more from mainstream press (not gaming press) about them (The cool careers thing isn't worth much). It's borderline enough with the author/interviewer that I can say "leave it out for other reviewers to decide" if nothing else comes up.
• You've got a deadlink (the timesonline one isn't dead, but an IGN one's gone dead).

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the IGN deadlink (just a bad cut and paste, was missing the "l" in html. I have not been able to dig up anything else on Worthplaying, I will try but I find it unlikely that MSM will have much on them. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave that out for other reviewers to decide for themselves then. Ping me if anything new pops up. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any need to give IGN three times the exposure on the reviews table? - hahnchen 11:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They are three different reviews from three different IGN sites. Considering the wide range of opinions found in all three, I considered it important to list them all. It's hardly undue weight. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just that IGN AU is not used at all but noted in the table, yet OXM US or Eurogamer Portugal (also not used) isn't there. The Total Video Games review is cited 5 times in total, yet does not appear in the table. This is a minor point, I'm not opposing, but it just looks like you shoved the IGN reviews in there just because they were on IGN; and had they written 4 reviews, that would have been in there too. - hahnchen 20:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose: From a content perspective, it looks fairly complete. However, the prose needs work before it can be called "FA quality". Here are a few examples:

• "In 2009, Halo Wars was released in Japan and Australia on February 26, in PAL territories on February 27, and in North America on March 3." Disjointed; crams too much information into a single sentence.
• "The game features a story-based campaign that can be played alone or cooperatively and a multiplayer option, called "skirmish mode". In skirmish mode, players may ally with humans to defeat computer-controlled units or battle each other." Try, "The game features a story-based campaign that can be played alone or cooperatively. A multiplayer option, called "skirmish mode", allows players to compete against human or computer-controlled opponents." Still not perfect, but probably an improvement.
• "Players can find and claim some supplies on the battlefield, but generate more by building special structures at bases. Income increases with the number of UNSC supply pads or Covenant warehouses." "Some" is needlessly vague. Also, referring to "UNSC supply pads or Covenant warehouses" is confusing to someone who hasn't played the game before, since you don't introduce them as supply buildings. Why not just cut it down to "... but generate more by building supply structures at bases. Income increases with the number of these structures." Something like that, although you'll have to find a word besides "structures".
• "Broadly speaking, ground vehicles are powerful against infantry, infantry do well against aircraft, and aircraft are the counter to vehicles." Not sure what could be done to this sentence, but repetition would probably be preferable to the constant change of terms.
• "The Spirit of Fire is run with help from Serina, a super-intelligent and highly sarcastic artificial intelligence (AI) with a dry and sardonic sense of humor;[14] she demonstrates a level of contempt for the humans she assists.[15]" This sentence contains redundancies. Try, "The Spirit of Fire is overseen by Serina, an artificial intelligence (AI) with a dry and sardonic sense of humor; she demonstrates contempt for the humans on board." Not having played the game, I don't know if this edit is factual. It's just an idea of how it could be improved.
• "The character design of the Spartans was meant to emphasize their relative inexperience and the setting of the game decades before the events of the main trilogy." This sentence is extremely disjointed, but I couldn't say how it could be improved.
• "Hoping players would become attached to individual Spartans in the campaign, the designers left the skirmish units nameless." The second part is seemingly unconnected to the first. If there is a connection, it needs to be made clearer. If not, split the sentence in two.

• These are just a few examples. I recommend finding a copyeditor to go over the entire article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I've modified all the above, save the ground v infantry v aircraft bit. I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I was referring to the way the wording changes each time; repetitive wording would probably improve the sentence. For example, "infantry counter aircraft, vehicles counter infantry, and aircraft counter vehicles". Not in those exact words, but something like that. Changing the wording each time is unnecessarily jarring. Anyway, as I said, those were a few random examples I picked out of the article. There are plenty of others, which is why I recommended a copyeditor. Until the prose receives polish, I can't support. I'd work on it myself, but I don't have enough free time; sorry. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I fixed the above example. I asked TKD to run through it, and I've done another pass. I've asked the esteemed Laser if he might be able to help out, but I know he's often swamped. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I just went through part of the article to fix redundancies and flow errors. As a result of the work Laserbrain and I have done, the prose has drastically improved. Unfortunately, it still isn't FA quality. You'll have to find another copyeditor, though, because I don't have any more free time to use on this article. The sections of the article beyond where I worked will need more attention; it also wouldn't hurt for another copyeditor to look over the sections that have already been worked on. On another note, I'd missed the lack of plot citations until bridies brought it up, but I have to agree with him on that. While you've added a few, there need to be more. In closing, I don't mean to be a pain, but I can't support it until further improvements are made.JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the prose, in too many parts, is opaque to readers like me, who do not play these games. OK, you might ask, why am I reading the article? My answer is that FAs should represent our best work; this does not. What are "two playable sides"? How many non-playable sides are there? What on earth does "allocate to upgrades" mean? Oh my, there are so many more. I too suggest you ask Laser if he will help with this. Having said that, FAC is not WP:Peer review Graham Colm ^Talk 23:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• And a peer review didn't garner any substantial comments, so hey, I blame the system. I have adjusted the two examples above. Could you care to list others that are opaque for a non-gamer? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, my problems are mainly in the Gameplay section and I think it would help a great deal if the Synopsis section came first. This at least would give a basic idea of what is going-on as the game is played. In Gameplay familiar words seem to have esoteric meanings in this context: "upgrading technologies", "campaign mode", "base", "tech", "tech upgrading", "tech level", "hero unit", "radial menu", "console" as an adjective, "income increases" are some examples of where I get stuck. Some of the linked words do not help much either; clicking on technology tree leads me to a definition that has its own links, only when I click on these secondary links do I eventually begin to understand the parent sentence in this article. If we could make Gameplay more non-gamer friendly, I would consider withdrawing my opposition. To be frank, and I am sure this is not true, when reading the section I feel that the contributors have been lazy. Graham Colm ^Talk 15:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've started working on the examples above; take a look and see if I'm heading in the right direction. As to the arrangement, why in particular would moving the Synopsis section aid in comprehension? The only elements carried over from one to another are the UNSC/Covenant dynamic. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

...and that helps. To be honest, doing so would make me, and perhaps others, more inclined to read the rest of the article—it's a more engaging read. No big deal though.Graham Colm ^Talk 16:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent about it. Video games articles generally have gameplay first, and I valid arguments for putting either first. I guess if others chime in that it would help I'd be glad to change it, right now that would be a change from all the other Halo games. The only term I'm having big issues with are "bases" and "campaign". What part of the bases explanation do you find lacking? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

If "base" and "campaign" are being used in the military sense and do not have an esoteric meaning in this context, they are fine. Although I understand now, I still don't like "story-based campaign mode" and "skirmish mode". Aren't these modes just versions of the same game? Graham Colm ^Talk 16:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's what the modes are called and while I suppose you could consider them "versions" of the same game there are significant differences. In the "old days", as it were it would be easier to draw the distinction because campaigns were essentially the single-player mode, and then multiplayer was also offered, but no most games allow for cooperative play in the campaigns as well so they are more social. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have withdrawn my oppose. I would like see further reviews from readers who know what they are talking about, (unlike me), before adding my support. Thanks for being so patient. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) It has been standard practice for quite awhile to place the gameplay section before plot details. I think it should stay that way, in this case. However, you do bring up a valid point about non-gamers trying to read the article. As it is now, I doubt you'll be the only person who has trouble understanding it. I should have some free time later, so I'll go over the gameplay section and see what still needs clarification. I'll also see if the prose needs any more work; Laserbrain already went through it, but the more eyes, the better. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed some things around. I think it's an improvement, but it might still need work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'm embarking on a copyedit of this article today. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Additional comments. I've concluded a general copyedit that hopefully has cleared up some issues people are seeing. Some additional concerns:
  • I feel there is a general overuse of quotations in the article. We seem to rely on them, especially in the Reception section, to convey the thoughts of critics and involved personnel. However, I think that unless they've said something profound, we should be paraphrasing. A few quotations are great, but we should remove and paraphrase at least 1/3 of what's there.
  • "According to Microsoft, the game set a one-day record for most downloads" This is far too nebulous and requires qualification. One-day record for what? For all games ever? For all downloadable content ever? For just Xbox games?
  • "two thousand GameStop stores held midnight releases for the game" Not confident that many readers are going to be familiar with the "midnight release" phenomenon prevalent in the US. Does any retailer do this in the UK or other places? Can we reword to somewhat explain what and why?

--Laser brain (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • I've tried to eliminate or shorten a batch of quotes in the reception section. I've also reworded the downloads mention, is it clearer now? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I think everything has been addressed now. --Laser brain (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I had a list of things to complain about in the gameplay section, but they have been cleared up. That section is looking much better now, IMO.
• I'm not keen on the lack of citations in the plot section. I would like to see some more of this sourced to secondary articles and/or dialogue from the game, if at all possible.
• RE: Laser Brain's comment about midnight releases, UK retailers do them on occasion; as a British reader I'm familiar with the term, at least. bridies (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Adding citations now. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • ...and citations added. --16:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Another issue I have with the plot section is it seems to be almost all in-universe. It could really use some more "signposting" to give an indication that this is a fictional narrative, such as is seen in the setting paragraph (i.e. "Halo Wars takes place in the science fictional universe..." and "The game takes place...") and again in the last paragraph (i.e. "If the game is completed..."). bridies (talk) 13:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the parts that have to be noted from out-of-universe perspective are already marked as such. (It is also from a continuing present tense.) Aside from maybe adding "the story begins" to plot, I'm not seeing any areas that would benefit from extra words. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I note there have been two calls for citations in the Plot section, which I think to be wholly unnecessary. The Plot section is not interpretive—it is merely an synopsis. Therefore, it should be assumed the primary source is used (the game) and citations should not be needed. I would ask Bridies and JimmyBlackwing to reconsider their position on this issue. --Laser brain (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why should this article be exempt from standard procedure? I can't remember the last time I saw a plot section without citations in a VG FA. Consider that, if there are no citations, there is no way for the average reader to verify the statements made without playing the game. Also, why should we assume that the plot details are correct? Without citations, it's perfectly possible that the writer made a mistake, or that a misinformed editor inserted incorrect details. There's no reason not to have citations, and plenty of reasons why not having them would be a bad idea. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think it's more the standard procedure that Plot sections do not require citations. However, I was looking more at novels and films. Looking at some video game FAs, I can see that quotes and such are cited, and I can see the value in that. I don't think we should require secondary sources though. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am fairly unfamiliar with the FA standards of novels and films, as I've mostly stuck with editing video game articles. But for video game FA plot sections, primary citations are basically the accepted procedure. I don't know about bridies, but I wasn't asking for secondary sources. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The Video Game Project's sources page recommends using secondary sources where possible, and this should be possible to some extent because reviews will provide a small amount of plot information. Citing the primary source is usually necessary as well (as reviewers won't give away the ending, for example), but as the sources page notes transcripts should be provided where possible. Citations are necessary IMO because inaccurate details do get added in sometimes. The section looks mostly fine now, but there is still a fact tag that needs addressing one way or another. bridies (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC Revisted - The article is much improved since my earlier comments, but I am still not convinced that some parts of the writing are of FA standard. It might be just my tastes, and although I do not like redundancy, I think some sentences such as "Multiplayer was generally judged well" are just a little too skinny, and, a few remain cumbersome, e.g "In January 2009, the soundtrack was announced to be released on February 17". There were boring repetitions of critics who constantly "felt that", which I WP:Bold changed to "said". I still think the article would benefit from a final polish before being promoted. I don't think definite articles are considered redundant—yet. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. What are "first-person shooters"? Graham Colm ^Talk 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

linky. Any issue in the article? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

linky is good, thanks. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, clearly I know bugger-all about video games. But I have done some homework; I have shown this article to the younger members of my laboratory who were impressed by it. I prefer a more traditional prose style and am still finding perceived "faults" with the prose. But I am happy to add my support now, but reserve the right, which we all enjoy, to tweak the prose later. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Por supuesto. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Graham Colm ^Talk 21:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Is there any need to have both GameRankings and Metacritic scores? - hahnchen 12:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't take your crusade against non-MC aggregate scores here, please. It's being hashed out on WT:VG. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This is a FAC, you should be justifying your editorial decisions. Same for your inclusion of every IGN score as mentioned above. - hahnchen 21:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Aggregate scores are useful as an overall metric and snapshot for critical consensus. Contrasting two different metrics is useful, akin to using Metacritic and Rottentomatoes together in a film article. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
        • To chime in her as someone passing by, over half the reviews contributing to GR's aggregate score are not shared with Metacritic, and David's point on contrasting the two scores is a valid point when both use an extensive amount of reviews.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• AGF Support - AGF because I assume you will fix this: In "Design", the paragraph beginning with "Because of the Master Chief's large role" has a quote that does not have a citation directly following it. If it is the same citation later in the paragraph, use the ref name and duplicate the citation immediately after the quote so it does not go without a direct citation following it. The same thing happens with the partial quote in the paragraph beginning "Ensemble expanded the". This occurs again in Audio with the sentence "Rippy started work on Halo Wars by listening to previous". As a side note, the quotes from the game (I assume they are from the game) don't really help in the reference section. I believe you could put them in a separate section but I have never done it myself so someone else would have to help you with it. The AGF is simply about the citations following the quotes above. You can ignore the video game quote comment as being a personal response and not part of this FAC comment. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Quotes have been sourced immediately afterward. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: The prose is more-or-less fine until Audio. That section and those below it clearly do not display "compelling, even brilliant" prose. The writing isn't horrible, but it is rough. But aside from the handful of corrections I made, I don't have time to copyedit it. Despite your comment on my talk page, I notice that TKD hasn't actually gone through the article. If he does, I suspect that any issues I have with the prose will be ironed out. Until he or another similarly skilled copyeditor polishes the article, though, I'm afraid I can't support. I think the fact that I've found something to fix every time I've looked through the article is proof enough that it needs work. If it sounds like I'm being unreasonable, I apologize. However, I believe that "Wikipedia's best work" should display professional-level prose, which this article currently does not. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • TKD has gone through the article; he was the first to do so. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Support: Oh, I see. I looked at the edit history and didn't see any recent edits by him. I guess I just didn't go back far enough. My mistake. Anyway, I found time to do a light follow-up copyedit for Laserbrain; it looks a lot better than it did yesterday. I'm not Tony1, but as far as I can see, the prose is hitch-free enough to be called FA quality. Sorry it took so long for me to support, but I think I can now do so in good conscience. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I've gone through it again from Audio down. I did find some problems, and a few artifacts that may have been introduced in the recent flurry of editing. I'm not seeing anything else, but I may be too close to the text to find additional problems. --Laser brain (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: In the Gameplay section, the part about "tech" is very confusing and vague. I'm a quite experienced gamer, and even I cannot figure out what this mysterious "tech" is (is it something like "supplies" that has to be collected? What are "tech levels" or "tech upgrades" - are they the same thing?), let alone would a non-gamer. Korodzik (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Tech is tech, not really any good way to describe it. It's not a resource, and it's not collected, rather its more an inhibiting factor to gameplay (can't build X until you have Y tech.) Is there some signal phrases, et al. that might make this clearer to you? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If I understand correctly: to build some structures, you have to achieve a certain "tech level", which can be done by building reactors, each of which provides a tech level upgrade (UNSC) or by building a temple, with which you can increase the tech level (Covenant). Is it like this? Korodzik (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes indeed. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.