Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots/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 not promoted 17:19, 7 March 2008.

Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots

edit
Check external links

Self-Nomination - This is an article about the said video game which highlights the game play, development, and reception of it. I have been working on this article recently and I believe it is well referenced, detailed, comprehensive, and is of featured quality. Hello32020 (talk) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  • "It has a variety of new features, such as new wonders, nations, and governments, but retains the essence of the original game." You've jumped in here in the lead with specifics assuming that the reader knows what you're talking about, especially with "new wonders". What's that supposed to be?
  • The lead should be expanded to mention more of "Reception", "development", and possibly give some basic context about gameplay.
  • "The Korean War during the Cold War campaign as played in Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots". Make captions as succinct as possible; "as played in Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots" is redundant as that is to be assumed, considering it is an image in that article.
  • Please conform to WP:DASH—unspaced emdashes or unspaced endashes.
  • I don't know, I've never worked on an article of this nature, but shouldn't there at least be a paragraph about the gaming fundamentals or any other basic context about gameplay? I know it's an expansion, but the reader's left in the dark otherwise.
  • "minor changes were introduced to complement the existing game structure, rather than radically alter it, as the original game format was highly successful" A couple of things wrong here: "highly successful" should be changed to "critically successful", as the former is ambiguous. I'd also qusetion the veracity of this; it seems like WP:OR as, because the game was critically acclaimed, you've assumed that the statement is true. Linking to reviews only verifies that the game was successful, and not that this was the reason for altering the game slightly. Finally, such a statement, if it is to be fixed, seems better suited in "Development". The source still don't confirm the statement saying that this was a result of the game's success.
  • "New features were added to the new nations". But if they're new nations, then the features of them would be neither new nor old as the nation itself is new. Please reword to clarify; if you mean new features of the game in general, then state that.
  • "The Napoleon campaign challenges the player to conquer Europe in a limited amount of time, with diplomacy, conquest, and bribing with land, both territories and colonies, to become allies being the means to do this." Reword this, because it requires several re-reads to be understood. Unless it's really relevant, you could cut out, "with territories and land" part.
  • "allows the choosing of". Poor wording here.
  • "each with a different "Patriot", effectively a stronger version of the "General" unit with different bonuses depending on which government was chosen." What's the point in defining a unit by comparison to another unit which also hasn't been defined. The reader doesn't know anything about the "General". The sentence is too long now; try splitting it up,
  • "created in the Senate a short time later". "short time later" could mean anything.
  • "Up to 8 players". Numbers under twenty (about) should be written out fully.
  • "empty spaces may be filled in with AI." I know what you're saying, but reword to be technically correct.
  • "Multiplayer" and "Scripts" should either be expanded or integrated into the main text, as the sections are too short.
  • Expand "Development" if you can—the whole thing's based on a single interview.
  • "Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots received a compilation score of 88% on both Game Rankings and Metacritic." This is needless considering the score is visible in the table.
  • "they cited the additions of more playable nations, new government mechanics, and new "Conquer the World" campaigns". What about them. Saying that they were cited means nothing.
  • "However, GameSpy called the game's artificial intelligence for "managing the individual movements of units and citizens...strategically brain dead." "Called" isn't the right word here.
  • The "Reception" section is basic, with one paragraph positive and the other negative. The table should never be larger than the text—cut down the table and expand on info. Is better, but still needs more work

A good article, but it needs some work. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed most of your comments in my recent edit, though I can't seem to find any more information on the development of R.O.N. Hello32020 (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better. Two more things: Take out the link to Gamerankings in external links; it's already referenced. I'd also consider taking Mobygames out too. I'd also like to know if there's any information relating to sales. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I took those two out of the external links, but can only find a combined figure for both Rise of Nations and Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots, source being Big Huge Games, of over one million sales. Should I add that? Hello32020 (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually sure. The figure may be better suited to the main game's article. But like I said, I'm not sure. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left some responses. Please tell me if I've missed anything. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I have addressed your comments, again besides development, can't seem to find anything else on it. Hello32020 (talk) 23:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done on the amendments. That leaves the "Reception". You need to cut down on the quotes and structure it differently. Don't split the paragraphs by positive and negative, but trying do it by such sections as gameplay, graphics, etc. Thanks for making the changes, though. By the way, if I've missed any strikes, then strike it for me, please. Ashnard Talk Contribs 07:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Striked one of them, per your request, that was already accomplished. Not sure if you think the first section in gameplay is good enough for basic gameplay elements, but that is really as much as I can find. Fixed the reception section to be into sections of the game experience overall, the game's additions, the in-game elements, multiplayer, and its award. Hello32020 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlickily for you and me, you always catch me when I'm off to sleep. Curse you time zones!. The changes are much better, but a few things: please cut out the word "said" in reception; I don't know, "claimed", "stated" or "commented" are more encyclopaedic. Try to cut out some redundant "alsos", and also try to make it more cohesive than "Gamespy said... Gamespot said... IGN said...". In themselves it's okay, but these followed repetitively without anything to link them doesn't make for great prose. For gameplay, I was referring to the gameplay not based on the expansion, but the main objectives of the game—both the original and the expansion. I've never edited an expansion article, so I'm not so sure on this one. Great work so far. Ashnard Talk Contribs 22:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Neutral01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC) - Ashnard has covered the gameplay sections fairly well and I trust his judgement on them. I'll look at Development and Reception.
    • "Big Huge Games added many things to the game during its development" - not very formal - try "Big Huge Games added multiple new features to the game during its development" or similar (see WP:FA? 1a)
    • "Executive Producer Tim Train" - I don't think his title is a proper noun
    • "and they added features to balance the gameplay" --> "and so features were added to balance gameplay"
    • "One way this was done is armed caravans and merchants were added to the Dutch nation" - you've used past tense so far; keep consistent
    • "Train also discussed the new features of the game, including campaigns and new nations." - this is meaningless if you don't say what he said about them
    • "He also said Big Huge Games" - rmv the also
    • The 2nd para of the development section is useless as it talks about reception and gameplay
    • "In November, 2004" - you don't need a comma and it should link to November 2004
    • The reception section overuses "claims" - use a thesaurus, come up with some other words. I use "noted" a fair bit; "declared", "commented", "explained", etc. are also useful
    • You don't need to wlink things more than once in Reception; GameSpy, GameSpot, and IGN are linked numerous times
    • "GameSpot said the game was a terrific experience and it not only provides exceptional content, but that it also improves an already good game" - don't change tense mid-sentnece
    • "However, GameSpy says the game's artificial intelligence" - use past tense
    • The reception prose in general isn't of a FA quality; try and copyedit a bit, etc.
    • You could mention the Metacritic/Game Rankings scores in the first reception paragraph.
  • At the moment, the article just isn't ready for the FA star. Suggest contacting the LOCE or asking at WT:VG if this FAC isn't successful. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 23:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed all suggestions, I removed Train's discussion of new features portion in development because it would be repetitive to expand on it as it is already explained in the gameplay section, and moved that second sentence to reception. Hello32020 (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to change to November 2004, fixed that now. Hello32020 (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've striked the oppose, yet I'm still unwilling to support. I have similar sentiments to DHMO with the reception. We've got to the stage where there doesn't seem to be much specifically to fix, but in general it could with some polish and more to satisfy the criteria, mainly engaging prose. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 17:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be interested to know that User: Jappalang has made a detailed analysis of the article at User talk: Clyde Miller#Re: RoN:TP. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added many of the user's suggestions to the article, however I still can't seem to find any more information on the development of the game. Hello32020 (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC) I've found some minimal detail on when the development was announced and a website for the game was launched, but that's it. Hello32020 (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned still by the prose quality; I can't really point out specific examples (short of copy pasting entire paragraphs) but much of what I read wasn't of the quality I'd like to see in an FA. I'd be happy to copyedit when this is done, as would, I imagine, others (especially those who haven't seen the article before). dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. When I get some free time, I'll lend a hand with copyediting. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:57, 6 March 2008 (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/Rise_of_Nations:_Thrones_and_Patriots/archive1&oldid=1085530134"