Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halo 3/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 Dana boomer 12:53, 26 September 2011 [1].

Halo 3 edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProject Video Games

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not look to have been kept up in the ~4 years since its was nominated to FA level. Specifically:

  • 1a and 1b
    • the gameplay section is far too detailed. While going over the basics and some of the more complex aspects is part of any game article, this one becomes WP:GAMEGUIDEy. Specifically going into details such as how to use Forge, the minutia about gameplay video size and bungie's website, going into minute details into the game's scoring, going into possible WP:COATRACKy detail on Xbox Live's ranking system, etc. The prose is also quite verbose such as "On a single console, up to two players can play a campaign and up to four can participate in a versus competitive multiplayer match through use of a split screen."
    • The plot has been trimmed, but is still more detailed than need be, especially when you include characters and setting. While not a plot only article, it goes into far more detail than is necessary for the average reader.
    • DLC - first of all I think the organization bad, but specifically about point 1b, it basically goes into far more detail than nessasary for what amounts to patches and additional game elements, particularly since they lack commentary.
    • There seems to be a lack of info on the staff. If they are important, their should be relevant commentary near them otherwise its undue weight to list them; most video games don't list their voice actors unless they have said commentary, are mentioned in development/production, etc.
    • Finally, the place that seems lacking is actually in the reception, speficially the awards. The prose lists the awards, but doesn't really give any details about why they were given those awards. That may not exist for everything, but I know its there for several of them. This and the cast info are why we use prose instead of just using lists.
  • 1c
  • the article doesn't use general refs and there are several items (outside plot) that don't have inline citations and aren't summary sentences, specifically the multiplayer section is where I saw these.
  • 2a
    • minor, but since I'm listing the issues, the last sentance is WP:COATRACKy in that it doesn't really need to mention the date of the previous release, let alone that its a sequel (that it had 3 in its title and was previously mentioned as a franchise should be enough to assume [[[WP:COMMMONSENSE|the average reader]] will realize its a sequel to Halo 2.
  • 2b
    • There appears to be too many subdivisions, but this could be due to 1a and 1b. It also doesn't follow the WP:VG/GL for placement of certain info like beta test info should be in development rather than gameplay (its not a part of final product), but part of its development.
  • 1d
  • 4
    • As mentioned above, it had a few items that seem to be coatracky and goes into excessive detail in the in-game aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs)
Also:
  • Sources:
    • Questionable reliability:
      • 29
      • 50
      • 53
      • 64
      • 67
      • 68
      • 75
      • 79
      • 82
      • 85
      • 104
      • 110
      • 111
      • 119
      • 121
      • 123
    • no publisher
      • 33
      • 55
      • 60
      • 124
    • Inconsistant citation style
      • 65 vs. 76
      • 94 - bare url 29
      • A lot of publishers have .xxx (bungie.net) while others don't (IGN). Choose one or the other.
      • This one probably has more, but those ones I could easily spot.陣内Jinnai 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Was step one done before this review started? (Raise issues at article Talk: In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.) GamerPro64 00:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note - As there was no prior notification on the talk page of the possibility of a FAR, this review is being placed on hold until such a notification can be made and editors have been given time to respond. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some work, and I updated the list to reflect that, but a majority of the issues have been left.陣内Jinnai 17:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you would want a Featured Article to be delisted just because it has 3 dead links in it? GamerPro64 15:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only. Look at the comments above. TGilmour (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but you can't vote to keep or delist until it becomes a Featured article removal candidate. GamerPro64 16:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perceived. TGilmour (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TGilmour is a blocked disruptive sock and troll. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I wasn't aware the FAR was progressing, I've just been listing on the talk page. I've taken care of the dead/unreliable refs, truncated the gameplay section, condensed down the plot a little more, and removed the images. I've started working on beefing up the reception section, and once that's done I'll go back and reference some of the gameplay that got left behind. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On sources there are still a lot of issues.
Inconsistant citation style jumping from listing the url vs. the publisher name. FE: (2) bbfc.co.uk vs. (6) Information Week. There's no reason that one needs to list the url are the url isn't the publisher. This is also used inconistantly for same publishers - Bungie.net vs. Bungie Studios. Others include 1UP.com vs. IGN (that they use 1up.com in their logo doesn't make it their name. Their statements do not include the ".com" bit). Xbox.com's publisher isn't Xbox.com; it's Microsoft.
18 - that is not formatted like the rest of the references at all.
31-34 - those are quotes? They should be placed after most of the more relevant info (publisher, title, etc). This may need to edit video game template.
Still not sure what makes these RSes
106 wortotalvideogames.com
108 Team Xbox
110 gamecritics.com
112 cinemablend.com 陣内Jinnai 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the list and made changes to all the references. I don't know what to make of the RS question, mostly since the sources in question are only used in the Reception section, and they are all fairly notable sites (Team Xbox and Cinema Blend have articles here, and GameCritics and Total Video Games are used in many other VG articles). Clay (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Clay here. GameCritics and Total Video Games are also worth mentioning here because they were among the lowest scores rated for the game; I'd say they're given a bit too much time as written but that's because I haven't recast the entire section as of yet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - what is the status of work being done here? Do editors feel more issues remain? Should this article be moved to FARC at this time? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've propped up the reception, and the gameplay and plot were cut down and recited. I've pinged Jinnai on his talk page; I'm still hoping to add more to the development as that's the weakest element right now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - does anyone think the plot section needs to be cited with sources of quotes from the game? because the plot sections in the Halo:Combat Evolved and Halo 2 articles references quotes, but the Halo 3 article doesn't have any-SCB '92 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's generally accepted that since a work's plot sections are referencing the work itself, you don't necessarily need plot citations; I generally only do it if there's something potentially contentious. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • @David Fuchs - sorry, this being the summer I'm not as available so its why it took so long.
      • Overall the article has improved greatly since I started the review process. There are still some issues that concern me.
        1. Gameplay - things seem to go into far to much detail at time and imo cross GAMEGUIDE and COATRACK. Specific examples:
            1. "Halo 3 offers a form of file sharing, where items such as saved films, screenshots, and custom variants can all be uploaded to Bungie's official website, Bungie.net. Anyone can browse user created content that has been uploaded to Bungie's website and tag it to automatically download to their console next time they sign into Xbox Live on Halo 3." - A lot of excessive detail to basically say you can create movies from gameplay and share them with others through Bungie's website.
            2. "Local area network or Xbox Live supports up to sixteen players in versus multiplayer matches, with game modes including variations of deathmatch and Capture the Flag. Players must actively seek out other players through their Xbox Live Friends list, using the party invite system, or the LAN search feature to play multiplayer matches with their own custom rules and customized maps. If they are connected to Xbox Live however, a player can choose to have the game decide for them the exact rules and map to play on, as well as finding additional people to play against or with, using the "Matchmaking" system (the automated grouping of players of similar skill). A player will decide from a selection of developer designed "playlists" which each contain a certain way to experience the game." - Esentially a long-winded explanation of exactly how to setup a multiplayer game. That kind of detail isn't needed here. The basics that you can create MP games through LANS or Xbox Live and maybe some brief info that their can be custom rules for the map is all that's needed to get the point across to the average Wikipedia reader.
            3. "Like other multiplayer Xbox 360 titles, Halo 3 uses a customized version of TrueSkill ranking system for its matchmaking on a per-playlist basis. A linear measure of a player's experience with the matchmade portion of the game and each particular playlist is also tracked (denoted as EXP).[25] To help players have an enjoyable time online, several peace-of-mind features are implemented within easy reach, such as avoid/feedback options on a player's service record, as well as voice chat mute straight from the in-game scoreboard.[26] Like Halo 2, Halo 3 supports downloadable content and updates.[27]" - First off, "Like other multiplayer...titles," sounds like OR since I don't find that statement in the source. It's also vague.

              ultimately that whole paragraph though feels entirely like a COATRACK statement. It's a description of how Xbox 360 ranks players regardless of what title they play. The info that it uses the 360's ranking system could be summed up in 1 brief sentence earlier on and the rest left to the 360 article where it belongs.

          2. Plot
            1. there are a couple of statements that are more subjective than objective in that section. Those that are subjective do require citations, even by those who generally allow for not needing citations here. I will go ahead and tag those.
            2. Just reading the plot section I noticed numerous grammatical errors in addition to very poor prose. I am not going to say whether the prose is engaging or not (i seem to have an opinion that differs to much from most people I think on what's "engaging"), but there are certainly numerous problems stuff like italicizing ship name names, run-on sentances, unclear meanings in some statements, excessive wordage such as "previously destroyed". There is enough to say there that I cannot fathom this passing a a GAN let alone an FAC.
            3. The whole synopsis section uses "Elite" which is a peacock term unless its tied specifically to a type of unit as part of the units title. Since there is no definition of what these "Elite" units are I can only assume that its a peacock term that is also improperly capitalized.
          • Partly clarified.
          1. Sources - Finally none of the sources mentioned above as being questionable have been removed or otherwise justified. The citation style has been made consistent, however.陣内Jinnai 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The part about the Elites was cleared up to me, but it still needs to be rewritten. They are capitalized in the gameplay without mentioning what they are there. That is defiantly a necessity at a minimum because its the first use of the race's name. However, I'd go so far that each section that uses it should restate it in someway once because its such a common word; however, I know some might not agree with that.陣内Jinnai 15:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can we get an update on how this is moving along please? Does anyone have an opinion on whether this needs to be moved to FARC or whether it can be kept before that stage? Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I hate how the second paragraph of the lead is just a sentence long, and could either be merged with another paragraph in the lead or expanded-SCB '92 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fleshed that out with development and marketing info to better represent the contents of the article as a whole. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the one sentence paragraphs in the Development section-SCB '92 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While most of my concerns have been addressed in some way or another, a few major concerns that have been there since the beginning have yet to be addressed, one of them is quite substantial. Withe a few exceptions, no one has bothered to answer why several sources are considered reliable. This was brought up in some cases by more than me and yet no one here has defended a single one of the sources questioned.
  • Second, there has been no change to the modes section which violates WP:GAMEGUIDE by going into unnecessary detail on how to setup the game for an article about the game (specifically the 2nd 2 paragraphs on the Modes section).
  • Finally, given that I, a person unfamiliar with the game, made a mistake about what Elites were, the info has not been mentioned with the first mention of them in the gameplay section. The way its presented in the first paragraph in the Modes section someone not familiar with the game could get the idea there that it was a capitalization mistake as elite is a common word normally. Added myself.
  • The rest of it has been satisified in some manner or another so its a lot better, but imo still not shown its FAC level, specifically because of the lack of concern on addressing the reliability of the sources. Notability or the lack thereof has nothing to do with reliability.陣内Jinnai 14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The specific refs I take issue with are
    • 61 - Who is Justin McElroy and why is he a RS?
    • 64 - Who is Mike Fahley and why is he a RS?
    • 90 - Who is Gavin Odgen and why is he a RS? Just publishing a book doesn't make someone an expert.
    • 110 - TeamXbox - while it may be notable, it doesn't appear reliable.
    • 111 - What makes GameCritics reliable?
    • No attempt has EVER been made since this FARC started to demonstrate their reliability. It's a shame that the FARC reviewers simply take the word that notabability = reliability at the word of those who said so, especially when GameCritics isn't even notable.陣内Jinnai 21:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Although extensive work appears to have been completed on this article in the FAR section, none of the reviewers appear willing to enter a declaration at this point in time. I am moving this to the FARC section in the hope of spurring additional discussion on the improvement of this article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delist Keep Going with weak based on my inexperience with the subject matter and the current limbo status of the article. Everything appears ok; I fixed a shipload of overlinking and updated retrieved on dates related to 2c. I believe there could be some trouble with confusing the |publisher= and |work= parameters. That needs resolution. Brad (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which ones? "Work" doesn't really apply to websites where they are not a physically distributed product (italicizing websites isn't accepted style). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the issues again you're correct. I had only skimmed the listings. I struck the delist accordingly. Brad (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Well, it definitely has improved a lot since the FAR started, and the quality is on par with most other video game FAs-SCB '92 (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after a complete read-through and brief look at sources. A few minor suggestions regarding prose and neutral tone:

  • Lead: "beyond the hardcore fans" ==> beyond the established Halo fanbase.
  • "Overall, the game was very well received by critics, with the Forge and multiplayer offerings singled out as strong features." ==> The reception section lists some criticisms, for example regarding plot in single player mode. Suggest removing the weasely "overall" and adding a brief remark about main critics.
  • Gameplay: "support weapons", but Equipment ==> why the different formatting of terms?
  • Modes: "Local area network or Xbox Live supports up to sixteen players in versus multiplayer matches, .." ==> why the "versus" here? versus each other?
  • Setting: "According to the backstory, humans developed faster-than-light travel and colonized dozens of planets before encountering the alien Covenant in 2525" ==> first mention of Covenant in main text, needs brief addition, what the Covenant actual is.
  • Release: "Upon release, some of the Limited Edition ..." ==> Can the amount be specified? If it's only a minor percentage, the section could probably be dropped as trivia (it's actually not that uncommmon for game releases, that packaging is faulty somehow). If it was a major problem, it should be stated more clearly.
  • Reception: "Reception of the single-player aspect varied. Yin-Poole wrote that while the cliffhanger ending of Halo 2 was disappointing, the campaign of Halo 3 "is anything but"." - what is meant with "is anything but" here? I couldn't find the phrase in the source - please double-check source.
  • "Halo [veterans] weep big sloppy sobs of joy". ==> Ouch advertising. I realize Gamespy wrote this, but could this be replaced with a more factual, neutral phrase? What exactly did Gamespy like about the multiplayer mode? GermanJoe (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fixed some minor points myself, others need more background knowledge. GermanJoe (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to address the rest above. There aren't hard numbers on the amount of disc defects but it was a major gaming news story at the time, numbers aside. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving those details. I stroke the remaining points. GermanJoe (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - has the nominator been pinged recently to revisit? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The specific refs I take issue with are
    • 61 - Who is Justin McElroy and why is he a RS?
    • 64 - Who is Mike Fahley and why is he a RS?
    • 90 - Who is Gavin Odgen and why is he a RS? Just publishing a book doesn't make someone an expert.
    • 110 - TeamXbox - while it may be notable, it doesn't appear reliable.
    • 111 - What makes GameCritics reliable?陣内Jinnai 00:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also add:
    • 37 - Why is Gameplayer reliable?
    • Sorry, the list was long so it's easy to miss one. I think that's all though.陣内Jinnai 01:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Justin McElroy - here; replaced Mike Fahley as his article was just a few words tacked on to a press release; Gavin Ogden replaced with 1UP article. As for the other 3, I don't want to mess around with the content so I'll let someone else deal with them. ClayClayClay 08:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 110 and 111 are supported by additional citations, so could be removed. Cite 37 covers "Unlike Halo 2, in which Bungie scrapped much of the game and started over, development of Halo 3 was much smoother.", which is problematic anyway (smoother?) and could be removed without much loss - development details are explained later anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think its best to remove the rest, then that's fine (assuming for the other the statement is removed). Then all the sourcing issues I had will have been taken care of. I still think the modes section deals too much with stuff that should properly go with Xbox 360, but I appear to be the only one here who believes that.陣内Jinnai 19:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't interpret the RS-rules so strictly myself (especially for a videogame), but as the 3 sources didn't add that much essential information - removed them. GermanJoe (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your opinion, but if this had been brought up as a FAC today, those would have been brought up so they should be at an FARC.∞陣内Jinnai 17:09, 20 September 2011 (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_review/Halo_3/archive1&oldid=1169493636"