Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive2

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 by Karanacs 18:38, 16 February 2010 [1].

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion edit

Nominator(s): Anonymous Dissident, G.W.

I am nominating this for featured article because recent restructuring, copyediting, and referencing leave me confident it's ready. This is G.W.'s baby, but he's given me the go ahead to sail it in. Thanks for comments and criticism (and a support, if you're feeling charitable). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The message from G.W. that you linked indicates he should be listed as a co-nom; is that no longer correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is, unless I've done it incorrectly. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it working now? G.W. (Talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment <ref>Images from rockpapershotgun.com at [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/june08/limbo1-limbo.jpg] and [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/june08/limbo1-oblivion.jpg]</ref> - doesn't use a citation template, unlike every other citation. Also, there is a ref name called TVG that appears to have been duplicated. Parrot of Doom 12:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both fixed. (The links were not really necessary, and arguably not appropriate.) —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Hey, I remember this article! I GA'd it back in the day, before G.W. completely rewrote it and took it to A-class. Anyways, please check that external link checker up in the right corner there- you've got a bunch of redirects happening on links in references, as well as a few dead ones. For the dead ones, go to web.archive.org and find the latest version of them if you can't find a replacement- I know you'll have to do that for the music4games one, as the site has completely died. You're also going to need to add alt text to all of the images- it's a bit difficult, so just ask me if you need any help. --Pres N 16:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've fixed the external link issues. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks. ~~Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added alt text to all images but one. (I'm not sure the last one deserves to be in the article. I have left it for the moment to see if Dissident wants to keep it.) This is the first time I've done this for an FAC, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. Thanks! G.W. (Talk) 06:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; image removed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the alt text looks good now. Eubulides (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Made a copy-edit of the article. I placed a couple of {fact} tags that people might like to look at. Cheers. HWV258. 23:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support—Changed to support.—RJH (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Reluctantly, I find myself opposing an FA because I don't think this article is quite ready, based on criteria 1b: Comprehensiveness. There is a lot of good material, but there are also some holes. Here's a list of my concerns:
- ~~The lead doesn't summarize some of the sections. In particular, the Development, Audio and parts of the Gameplay sections. See WP:LEAD for clarification.~~
- The Gameplay section needs to approach the subject by assuming the reader knows little about computer games in general. It discusses skills in reference to the Morrowind system, but it instead should stand by itself. It needs to explain what skills are in the context of the game. It also needs to explain that combat is real-time and mouse-driven. Part of this is somewhat mixed into the third paragraph when it mentions blocking, but that really should be in a separate paragraph on player interaction. Finally, I think it should also briefly describe character creation, since this is a fundamental aspect of the game.
- The ~~third~~ last paragraph of the Gameplay section starts off about the stealth and combat skills set. At somewhat random points it adds in comments about the magic skills (see below). These are a different subject and should be in a separate paragraph, along with some brief discussion of the magic skill system.
  - ~~The ability to "forget" spells was also not included. (This statement also needs to be clarified.)~~
    - I trust the "(discard)" I've placed next to '"forget"' fixes the problem. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Enchantment as a skill, by which items are endowed with special powers, was not carried over from Morrowind to Oblivion; instead, items are enchanted via plot-specific processes.~~
    - Anything more specific is not apposite, if you ask me. "a skill by which items are imbued with special powers" is sufficiently clear and descriptive. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure you read my original statement. The language isn't the problem; it's the placement. I.e. changing the subject of the paragraph in mid stream.—RJH (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        A new paragraph would be a poor structuring choice – everything discussed in the current paragraph relates to changes made from Morrowind to Oblivion. Instead, I've made the topic sentence of the fourth paragraph more general, and I've lumped discussion of magic-based changes in one place. How now? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That works.—RJH (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "leading to the expedited creation of more complex and realistic landscapes present in past titles..." Is a "than was" missing here? Is this saying the landscape are as complex as in past titles, but were build more rapidly? Please fix the ambiguity.
- "...uses more multi-level environments than previous games..." This statement is unclear, even with the appended remark about the topology. By multi-level, I assume you mean allowing movement between different levels of buildings and dungeons without necessarily requiring a transition screen. But this is not clear from the text.
  - I actually fixed this, but forgot to save at the time. I've added an example to make things clearer. I didn't write the sentence, but my interpretation is that it means to refer only to a more varied topology, and not to fewer load screens (which are discussed later). If you think about it, multi-story buildings and the like are much scarcer in Morrowind than Oblivion. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There appears to be very little discussion about the Radiant AI system, which gives the NPCs full lives of their own, independent of the player's activities. I thought this was a highlight of the game, and it really brought the world to life. This issue proved a show-stopper for me.
- ~~"quest NPCs" is unexplained.~~
- ~~There are some cites that have what appear to be anonymous author names. In particular, APY, Finger, KingSix, Maeyanie and Polybren. How do we know that these individuals are reliable sources?~~
  - The "Featured article criteria" part 1c says, "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources". Thus I'm not clear that these anonymous articles would satisfy the criteria. Can the author's credentials be clarified or additional reliable sources be provided?—RJH (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've replaced or removed all but APY and Polybren. While these authors are operating under a pseudonym, their pages are catalogued at GameSpy and GameSpot, respectively, two well-respected online gaming publications. Do you think their reliability is still questionable? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, I did a little googling and it looks like APY is actually Abram Wagenaar; he is on the staff at GameSpy. Polybren is Brendan Sinclair and he is a journalist on the news staff at GameSpot. So I think they're both respectable sources. But you might want to use their fill names instead. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed this article having played and enjoyed the game, but I tried to take the perspective of somebody who was unfamiliar with the release or computer gaming in general. Sorry to have to oppose at this point.—RJH (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All fair comments. I'm sure these are resolvable, and I'll get to work immediately. Thanks. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, I'll check back later then. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I'm not mistaken, all your concerns have been addressed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ~~Mmm, nope. One more...~~ Yep.—RJH (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if all the images meet the non-free content criteria, particularly File:Oblivion.jpg and File:Ssmartinwallpaperiw8.png, which appear to just be decorative. I confess that I haven't read the article carefully, but in my skim I didn't see any critical commentary about those images themselves. File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg is also questionable (the horse armor package is mentioned briefly in the text, but nothing is really said about its visuals in particular). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be entirely willing to scrap the images. Dissident? G.W. (Talk) 06:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - The first two are probably okay to remove. However, the horse armor picture provides the reader with a valuable visual understanding of what consumers were paying for, if you ask me. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes sense. Perhaps there's some way we could emphasize that "the contents of this image represent the entirety of the DLC". G.W. (Talk) 18:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Overall, a very good article its contributors should be proud of, but I've got several issues, big and small.

- Prose: You need to add non-breaking spaces to many areas (WP:NBSP), and there's inconsistent formatting approaches—in some cases game-specific terms are emphasized, while others are "quoted". To me the prose is a tad too wordy, when phrases could be simplified and shorted, and relies a bit too heavily on wikilinking, not explaining technical terms when it really should (the readers should be able to get the bare minimum without having to link away and thus probably never come back to your page.)
  - True about non-breaking spaces. False about game-specific terminology. If you look closely, you'll see that key terminology is italicised when introduced (Major Skills, Attributes), while particular cases of those concepts are in quotes (the "Heavy Armor" skill, the "Strength" attribute). Tell me if you think that doesn't cut the mustard. Saying that the prose is a tad too wordy is quite a vague comment; can you recall which part you were reading when you thought that? For the last point, I'll re-read the article and attempt to fix overly technical wording and lazy wikilinking. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm also concerned about what I feel is improper synthesis. The reception section is very short, and reads, for example: "...1UP.com and several other publications criticized the repetitive and occasionally absurd nature of conversations between in-game NPCs: "...when an NPC greets you with a custom piece of dialogue (such as a guard's warning) and then reverts to the standard options (like a guard's cheerful directions just after that warning) it's more jarring than the canned dialogue by itself." ". What other publications? Why is 1UP's opinion the only one worth quoting, let alone sourcing? Why is only Metacritic quoted in the lead (or was, I removed it as overly specific) while Game Rankings is only quoted in the reception section? Why are scores mentioned when they are listed in the table? I don't think you should source a general summary that "Oblivion was well-recieved" to Bethesda's own awards page (COI issue much?) I also agree with RJH's issues about accessibility (some of which would be solved by explaining the bluelinks as I suggested above.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Begun working on the source and synthesis concerns. Removed the scores from the prose. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments I am deferring to the comprehensiveness and synthesis concerns (and their fulfillment) before doing a full review of what's been used. RB88 (T) 12:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.