Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Agar.io/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2015 [1].

Agar.io edit

Nominator(s): Esquivalience t 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agar.io (currently a GA) is currently one of the most popular browser/mobile games. Despite its simplicity, it has managed to garner over 10 million downloads on the first week of release of the mobile version, and the browser version is one of the 1,000 most visited websites (according to Alexa Internet).

This article is very short for a featured article candidacy; however there is not too much information to cover because of its developmental and gameplay simplicity. Nonetheless, I have squeezed every last piece of useful information from 21 reliable sources, and I believe it meets the featured article criteria after some small improvements. Esquivalience t 15:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • The Agar.io game suffers severe "lag" issues.
  • The lead may need a paragraph about its reception.
  • Add an English source whenever a French one is used. JerrySa1 (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not needed per WP:NOENG, and I can't find a English-language source as high quality as Le Monde that also covers the same information. Esquivalience t 23:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source needs to be added on platforms it can be played on. Do we know if it be played on Linux? I don't know if that is important, but I'm new to reviewing articles.

JerrySa1 (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius

  • I was casually reading this article as a joke when I noticed, with seriousness, that the sentence "Valadares continued updating and adding new features to the game, such as an experience system and an "experimental" gamemode for testing experimental features" was sourced only to an explanation note. Is there a reliable source for this?
  • The changelog is the reference for this (clarified the note) and I have added one source by the mobile publisher of the game. Esquivalience t 21:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, this game also has "skins" that are unlocked for users that connect with Google/Facebook and have a certain XP. (Maybe this is not reliably sourced, but I saw it. If it's not reliably sourced, it doesn't need to be added.)
  • You may want to move citations from the lead to the body per WP:CITELEAD.
  • You may also want to add stuff about the political use in the lead. epicgenius (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I cannot find any other problems with the article. But if I can make it to the top of the leaderboard, it'd be nice. ;) In the meantime, if there is any other stuff that needs to be fixed, I will let you know. epicgenius (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, a variant of the sentence Agar.io was a quick success; the agar.io website (for the browser version) was ranked by Alexa as one of the 1,000 most visited websites should be also mentioned in the body, with its corresponding source. epicgenius (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^ The reference for that should really be within the note. epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As do The name Agar.io comes from the substance agar, used to culture bacteria. epicgenius (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from JM

Please don't hate me for saying this, but my gut instinct is that we should not be promoting short articles on such recent topics (the game was released less than 8 months ago!) to FA status. It is not yet clear what kind of lasting significance that this game will have, and this surely belongs as part of the article. Maybe in a couple of years, when the game is more established, and we're clear on whether it has won awards or featured in "best game"-type lists, and the developer has gone on to other things and all the rest- but, for now, I think it is better left as a GA.

Even if I ignore this instinct, I do not think that the article is of the quality expected for FAs. Here are some more specific comments:

  • The lead seems to contain material that is not found elsewhere in the article. This is to be avoided. Also, given the length of the article, the lead seems too long.
  • Was it actually released on Steam? Does that belong in the infobox?
  • "Agar.io was especially popular in Turkey during the campaigns of the June 2015 Turkish elections." Do you have a source for this?
  • There's no mention in the gameplay section of players being able to customise their cells; this seems to be important.
  • The reception section feels very repetitive. x of y said z; a of b said c. Also, be aware of the repetition of "it", and take note of MOS:LQ.
  • "Published by Miniclip, the mobile versions" We know!
  • Some of your cited sources are lacking key information. Generally, I would recommend offering translations of non-English titles (trans_title= works on the standard citation templates). Some specific examples:
    • Irmak lacks an accessdate, as do some others.
    • You're inconsistent on your italics of website names
    • Your article in The Week was published Jul 20, 2015, your Kotaku source was published 5/26/15. Other sources lacking dates may actually have them on the page you're citing. (Relatedly, your date formatting is inconsistent.)
    • Your "Summary of changes" source seems to lack any kind of formatting
    • Are you certain of the reliability of all of these websites? Ezines and "entertainment websites" are probably OK at GAC, but FAC has a higher standard for these kinds of things.
  • Your non-free use rationale for the screenshot is incomplete. Is it really necessary?
  • Some searching is suggesting that "Agar.io" was a top search term this year; a story released this week. This has led to a few mentions in decent sources, and may be worth discussing in its own right. It's also illustrative of my "nominated too soon" point.
  • Similarily, I see it appearing on a few year-end lists... This and this and this, for example.
  • Another quick review which is maybe worth citing: here.

I think this article belongs as a GA at this time; until the topic is a little older (and, preferably, there's a bit more coverage from reliable sources) I don't think it's ready for FA status. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Agar.io/archive1&oldid=785129847"