Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 2/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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 06:03, 17 February 2007.
Halo 2 edit
I basically got this up to GA, and it certainly was a learning experience... I certainly think its up for FA, but it of course depends on you. Be brutally honest! Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support (obviously) Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The article has {{fact}} in it. It also has external jumps in the body that I assume should be refs in {{cite web}} format. The Audio section is completely uncited, as is the Limited Collector's Edition section. Full dates should be properly linked. Jay32183 22:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- sorry about the note cite-web format links, someone sneaked those in while I wasn't looking. I've cited some stuff in the audio and cleanup and cut down the respective sections; as for dates, I'm on it. EDIT - ok I don't see any issues with the dates. The full ones are properly linked according to WP:DATE, and the rest don't need links as they don't establish any more context. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually went ahead and formatted the dates after you demonstrated that you were willing to work on the citation issues. I'll review the article again when I get a chance to make sure nothing else needs to be cited. If anything else needs to be cited, I'll be sure to let you know. Jay32183 23:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- sorry about the note cite-web format links, someone sneaked those in while I wasn't looking. I've cited some stuff in the audio and cleanup and cut down the respective sections; as for dates, I'm on it. EDIT - ok I don't see any issues with the dates. The full ones are properly linked according to WP:DATE, and the rest don't need links as they don't establish any more context. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - Undeveloped reception section. Only one review is referenced, could do with a reviews snapshot as seen in other FAs such as Halo: Combat Evolved. The List of Awards seems completely arbitrary, who cares about what Gamefly, a games rental service awards it? You also shouldn't list things like trivial in-development E3 awards, which have no real qualifier on the quality of the game, although they could be mentioned in the development section. - hahnchen 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Aye aye. I copied and updated the Halo:CE table with Halo's awards, added roughly a new paragraph of copy into reviews with quotes. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sections are still lacking. The development section barely touches on the development at all. - hahnchen 21:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it is... I've added some more, let me know if you think its moving in the right direction. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that sales are part of the reception, not the development right? Development is the "Making of ...". Reception is the "Responce to ...". Jay32183 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be why you're reviewing it :P my bad. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that sales are part of the reception, not the development right? Development is the "Making of ...". Reception is the "Responce to ...". Jay32183 00:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose it is... I've added some more, let me know if you think its moving in the right direction. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Some sections are still lacking. The development section barely touches on the development at all. - hahnchen 21:04, 15 February 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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.