Wikipedia:Featured article review/Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening/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 delisted. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening edit
Review commentary edit
Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Notified: Caribbean H.Q., Tezero, Igordebraga, Gary King, rst20xx, Kariteh, WikiProject Video games, Devil May Cry task force
I looked up this article today as my first choice for reading one of the articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing pre-2008 FAs. I am not a fan of the Devil May Cry video games, but I just read this article because of "Reviewing pre-2008 FAs" and found it to be below Featured Article (FA) standards. Before explaining the issues here, I thought of the article as a whole compared to the contemporary FA. I checked the article again, just for verifying if I was right on the flaws I identified. My earliest findings on this article, "Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening", are that it needs additional references/soruces, has prose issues, and must be expanded. And the lead does not talk about the development of the game. The article also sometimes gets into mediocre grammar.
I am not the first user to report the problems with this article. Tezero created "Devil May Cry 3: Just telling you", a section on the talk page of Caribbean H.Q. (who was known as "Dark Dragon Flame" back when he developed the article into an FA in 2007) in which Tezero asserts it needs sourcing, has got to have a screenshot, and is "among the most likely WP:VG articles to get nominated for an FAR." He also says: "The second and third paragraphs of Gameplay are particularly glaring." So indeed yes, "Devil May Cry 3" has an Featured Article Review (FAR).
I've copied this text from the article's talk page to WT:VG, and then to this page with alterations, so that more people are aware of this. I nominated this article for FAR because it does not meet current FA standards, and no-one immediately responded to the text beforehand.
Let's see how "DMC 3" works with the FA criteria:
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
- It is:
- well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
- comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
- well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
- neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
- stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
- compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
- It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
- a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
- appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
- consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
- Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
- Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
"Devil May Cry 3" does not meet 1a (instances of improper prose, unnessecary formatting, and mediocre grammar), 1b (not enough detail about the subject), 2a (lead ignores the development part and contains unnessecary detail of cutscenes and full-motion videos), 2c (needs additional citations/references/sources), 3 (no game screenshots with fair use rationale template and/or images of Capcom staff) (I thanked Igordebraga for uploading two game screenshots with "Non-free use rationale" templates, the article now meets 3), and 4 (needs expansion). IX|(C"<) 06:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When I see a problem fixed, I can "strike" (<s>text</s>) a part of the "does not meet" paragraph.
IX|(C"<)23:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for misspelling "unnecessary". IX|(C"<) 07:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots of text here. Can you elaborate on which parts of the article need expansion? I didn't see it mentioned czar ♔ 14:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead has three paragraphs, all short and not comprehensive enough. The "Gameplay" section needs more details (if any). The "Development" section has got to be expanded. The "Sales" section is apparently incomplete. These particular four sections all need proper expansion.
IX|(C"<)15:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead has three paragraphs, all short and not comprehensive enough. The "Gameplay" section needs more details (if any). The "Development" section has got to be expanded. The "Sales" section is apparently incomplete. These particular four sections all need proper expansion.
- Delegate note - As there was no article talk page notification prior to this FAR (which is required, please see the FAR instructions), I am placing this review on hold. If the article is not improved significantly during the hold period, the review may be brought back to FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As no significant improving edits have been made to the article during the hold period, I am now reopening the FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The DMC3 article talk page has a proper talk page notification. I wasn't the first editor to notice the issues the article had, but I raised them, and I discussed with other users about the article's poor quality. However, we moved on to dealing with featured/good content instead of improving the DMC3 article with edits, and the article was edited 4 times after I started the FAR. That's very little improvement to the article during the week-long "wait" period. IX|(C"<) 23:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DMC3 hasn't been edited since February 18, 2014. Igordebraga just uploaded images, adding them to the article. IX|(C"<) 06:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wonder if we could request a copyedit for the article. I don't think the prose is that bad; I just notice some awkward phrasings, mainly in Gameplay. The best way I can describe it is that it looks like it was written by someone who doesn't play games or know much about them but is vaguely interested in them from a business perspective. And yeah, the screenshots are definitely appreciated. The only other major issues I think remain are the non-comprehensive intro and Reception section. Tezero (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, DMC3 has gone to FARC. If no real big improvements occur during the FARC stage, the article's no longer FA. IX|(C"<) 01:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Over a week after this FAR became an FARC, only 2 edits have been done to the article: the first one was apparent vandalism from an IP, and the second just a revert by a bot. No improvements done with those edits, and the GOCE request has seen almost no response so far. IX|(C"<) 04:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FAR is almost over, so far very little progress to the article has had been made. IX|(C"<) 01:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delist due to a lack of progress. Mr*|(60nna) 21:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- But wait, there's more!: Today, Tintor2 has edited the article twice.
Mr*|(60nna)21:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 3 weeks after the FARC stage began. Still almost no progress. Do we need to close this review with a Delist consensus? Mr*|(60nna) 17:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you stop doing that? The delegates know when its time to close a review. Your constant notifications on everything does not help this review get done any faster. GamerPro64 17:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've finished the copyedit, but must agree that while the article probably meets the good-article criteria it falls short of the current featured-article standard due to its sourcing—too much reliance on primary sources, and the presence of dead links and failed verifications. Miniapolis 20:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree because I think DMC3 could be nominated and promoted to GA status after the FAR.
Mr*|(60nna)22:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, the FAR is over. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 23:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why doesn't this FAR page have a blue background yet?
}IMr*|(60nna)I{04:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.