Wikipedia:Featured article review/Empires: Dawn of the Modern World/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 kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 8:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [1].

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World edit

Notified: Clyde Miller, WikiProject Video games

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of it not being up to snuff in terms of standards for Featured Article. Throughout its page it uses references considered unreliable for video game articles (i.e Armchair Empire). Also the prose should be reworked, with sentences like "Empires‍ ' multiplayer component, powered by GameSpy, is freely available to any player who has an updated version of the game. Though as of 2007, this game is no longer supported by GameSpy for online play." as its both poor and outdated. Overall not something I should have the bronze star on it in its current state. GamerPro64 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time has not been kind to this article. Yep, at the very least the whole thing needs a through scrub and the lede is way too short for FA status. – czar 22:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not summarize most of the content and the Reception section could probably be reworked. Ana r chyte 04:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC No-one working on it. DrKay (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - This isn't going anywhere. GamerPro64 02:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Standing concerns over reliability of sourcing and comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ - Per my comments. GamerPro64 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delist and re-assess as B-class. The prose needs improvement, not all of the sources are appropriate per WP:VG/RS, and the lead disappoints. Could be a GA candidate given some editing, expansion, and (re)sourcing. Esquivalience ^t 22:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to take a shot at saving this one. I remember supporting it when it passed back in the day, and the lead editor was a Wikifriend of mine. It should be fairly easy to polish up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's worth holding off delisting this for the time being. Jimmy knows how to get stuff done. GamerPro64 03:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. It's going to be a bigger job than I initially thought, but I'm going to work on it steadily until it's done. Thanks for everyone's patience in advance. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hey, if you get stuck into it, we can cut considerable slack for time...we're happy to leave it open for as long as it takes if y'er still plugging away at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Much appreciated. It might take me a couple weeks, but I'll whip this thing into shape. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        It's starting to come together. There's plenty of work ahead, but I can finally see the end of the tunnel. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Everything's done except the lead and Reception, which are half finished. Progress will be slow this week because of limited Internet access where I'm at, unfortunately. I'm in the home stretch, in any case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Still dragging here, but rest assured that I haven't given up. I should be able to return to full work on the article this week. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for keeping us informed! DrKay (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I wrote up a Reception section and finished the lead. The article's quite a bit smaller than it used to be, but I've tapped every worthwhile source I could find. How does it look, guys? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: and @Esquivalience: can you please offer an opinion on the improvements? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a massive improvement thanks in part to Jimmy. I'm striking my vote to Delist and voting to have it keep its FA status. GamerPro64 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great unilateral save. Esquivalience ^t 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys - will ping the others who've commented above and if we have a consensus I'll close it up. ...hey @Czar:, @Anarchyte: and @DrKay:...who do y'all feel about this article now? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on the cleanup, though I think the gameplay should be better described in the lede for FA status. (And the gameplay section presumes that the reader knows what real-time strategy genre gameplay entails.) Still nothing I feel strongly enough to hold up the train.

czar 21:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Thanks. But are you saying that the changes need to be made before the nomination closes, or that they aren't relevant enough to hold up the closure? I assumed the latter, but the nom is still open, so I don't know. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a passing observation that I don't believe the lede/gameplay would hold up at a new FAC discussion, but I don't feel strongly enough to advocate for a delist. czar 02:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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) 08:14, 24 October 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.