Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halo: Combat Evolved/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 by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC) [1].
Halo: Combat Evolved edit
- Notified: JimmyBlackwing, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Halo
Review section edit
I am nominating this article for FAR because I do not believe it meets the featured article criteria anymore. It was promoted way back in 2006, when the standards were far lower (this is what an FAC looked like back then).
Problems I notice are:
- It's not "professionally written" (1a) (these examples aren't the only ones, either):
- For one thing, the lead is structured kind of weirdly—"it was released as a launch title for the Xbox gaming system on November 15, 2001, and is considered the platform's "killer app" is the second sentence of the first paragraph.
- The gameplay section is poorly worded: "As a first-person shooter, the gameplay of Halo: Combat Evolved is fundamentally similar to that of its peers". How can a video game have peers? Also, the phrase "FPS" is repeatedly used with no context given as to what this means.
- Fixed It was worded quite strangely at times and kept on talking about how funny it was to see aliens get killed by plasma; I fixed it, hopefully it isn't as awkward.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 15:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The reception section follows the ill-fated "A said B" list of facts format, rather than an overview of the critical reception (WP:RECEPTION).
- It's not comprehensive (1b):
- The development section barely even talks about how Bungie made the game and is more like a schedule of major announcements about the game. One big question: why did Bungie change it to an FPS?
- It's not well-researched (1c):
- There are many questionable sources, such as "The Adrenaline Vault" (which is explicitly listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S) and "Xbox Kombo".
- Fixed The unreliable sources and their associated content has been removed.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 14:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Mass amounts of text are unsourced. This is a big problem.
JOEBRO64 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There was an inadequate delay (24 hours) between the nominator raising concerns on the article's talk page and nominating it here. Per WP:FAR, "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." This includes the initial concern-raising stage. The nomination should be closed until the proper procedure has been observed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We can give this stage twice the length in time if you want. :) --Izno (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whichever way works for the FAR coordinators. Sad as it is to see this article nominated here, Halo doesn't grab me like it did 12 years ago as a research subject—I don't plan to mount a rescue operation here. I will say that the prose quality seems to have been deteriorated by drive-by edits over the years, so I might rescue a few paragraphs of the old text from previous versions. Beyond that, we'll just cross our fingers that others at WPVG are interested in saving it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to leave it sitting here for longer given the speed of the notification. Given you know the article and subject well @JimmyBlackwing: it'd be great if you could just double check the additions anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll see what I can do. Halo's development in particular is a really, really big subject (probably article-worthy in itself), so I don't envy anyone who wants to write a 2018-quality version of that section! We'll see if someone makes an attempt. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Happy to leave it sitting here for longer given the speed of the notification. Given you know the article and subject well @JimmyBlackwing: it'd be great if you could just double check the additions anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whichever way works for the FAR coordinators. Sad as it is to see this article nominated here, Halo doesn't grab me like it did 12 years ago as a research subject—I don't plan to mount a rescue operation here. I will say that the prose quality seems to have been deteriorated by drive-by edits over the years, so I might rescue a few paragraphs of the old text from previous versions. Beyond that, we'll just cross our fingers that others at WPVG are interested in saving it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it.💵Money💵emoji💵Talk 02:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section include prose, comprehensiveness, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist. Aside from Money Emoji's edits, barely any of my points have been resolved. Prose is still somewhat subpar, entire paragraphs are still unsourced, the development section still remains unexpanded, and the reception section is still just A said B. JOEBRO64 20:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for now. I can't put the time needed to fix the article right now, so it's ok if it gets delisted. I'll get it to GA, then I might renominate it for FA when I have the time💸Money💸emoji💸💴 21:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.