Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars/archive3

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 GrahamColm 19:26, 9 March 2012 [1].

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it is ready :) -Khanassassin ☪ 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still a Wikicup nomination? - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't want this article to be FA because of that, but I will include it in my WikiCup score. - So, yeah, I guess. --Khanassassin ☪ 19:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on the strength of Ruhrfisch's oppose in the last FAC. He had mentioned at WP:PR that the article needed copyediting, and no edits had been made since then. I've been through the diff; nothing has been done since the last FAC that I'd call copyediting, and what's been done has made it worse (inserting a contraction, for instance). I understand that it's frustrating that copyediting is hard to come by, and I'm sorry I don't have a solution. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contraction? --Khanassassin ☪ 15:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the diff since the 20th for "it's". - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um...the article will fail because of an "it's" - wow, that's a bit harsh, isn't it? --Khanassassin ☪ 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what Dank is saying: he's giving that as only one example of the issues with the article. Ucucha (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... Could somebody post the issues on the talk page of the article, so I can fix'em? --Khanassassin ☪ 17:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of an FAC is that issues are raised on the FAC page. I'll raise some more soon. Inter change able|talk to me 17:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK --Khanassassin ☪ 18:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the issues Dank has raised are significant. I randomly chose a section ("Development"), where I found a run-on sentence as the first sentence in the section-- got lost before I finished reading it. Popping down in that same section, found: "A few years earlier, Cecil had played for a cricket team with the composer Barrington Pheloung. Charles decided to contact him to suggest that he writes the music." Writes? And between Ccil, Pheloung, and Charles, who is him? Next, I went down to the section "Director's Cut" and found "On March 21, 2009, Ubisoft released a special edition of Shadow of the Templars for the Wii and Nintendo DS. According to Cecil, the Director's Cut came about thanks to a group of Broken Sword fans, who started an online petition begging him to bring the series back to the Wii and DS.[58] The game was programmed by Tony Warriner and Joost Peters." Why the jump from an online petition to who progarmmed the game? Please get independent eyes to look over the entire article, for grammar, prose and flow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Khanassassin. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose prose and referencing format. Web references should have access dates, in the lede alone I've seen several elementary prose issues, such as "The player assumes the role of George Stobbart -a young American patent lawyer who is an eyewitness and victim of a bomb attack on a small Parisian cafe" (emphasis added) 12:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Um...the refs have accessdates...lol --Khanassassin ☪ 13:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - FN 100 - 107? No reference dates. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - 56 and 57 also need work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend withdrawal. I've been watching this article closely as it's been rushed to this process multiple times now. Needs careful attention and copyediting by an unfamiliar and competent copyeditor, plus attention to referencing style and format. --Laser brain (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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