Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo (series)/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 by User:SandyGeorgia 00:03, 16 June 2008 [1].

Halo (series)

edit

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...Nominator...The members of The Halo WikiProject have put a great deal of effort into it. I am nominating on their behalf as we all feel that the article passes the Featured Article Criteria. Thank you. Blackngold29 16:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Great start! I started out enthusiastic about this one because a lot of effort clearly went into the preparation. However, I got bogged down in issues quickly and stopped reading after "Common elements". Examples below illustrate problems with MoS, jargon, and organization. I also stumbled into some basic grammatical problems ("amount" vs. "number") that show a solid copy-edit is still needed. Get a non-gamer and kill the jargon issue at the same time.
    • Needs copy-editing by an MoS stickler. Lots of little problems (ex. "including the upcoming real time strategy game"; should be "real-time")
    • You're dousing the reader in game jargon starting in the lead. Imagine you know nothing about video games but you're reading this because it's featured on the main page. "First-person shooter"? "Console game?"
    • Why hyphenate "technologically-advanced" and not "cybernetically enhanced"?
    • "The strong sales of the game series have led to a massive Halo franchise." "Massive" sounds a bit POV; would help to have a citation or even a quote of an authoritative source calling it massive.
    • "The main trilogy featured first person shooter gameplay, along with third person vehicular gameplay." Why "featured" when a sentence before you wrote "features"? Also, "main trilogy" has no prior context. You write about Halo 1, 2, and 3 in the lead, but you don't ever call it a "trilogy". In fact, you haven't yet delineated what games comprise the series, which would seem to be required for the lead. I see further down you introduce the main trilogy..
    • "There is also the option to fight ..." Messy.
    • "Players can carry a certain number of grenades, which can disrupt masses of enemies or flush out entrenched foes; together, this "weapons-grenades-melee" format forms the "Golden Triangle of Halo" gameplay ..." Imagine your grandma reading this.

--Laser brain (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: As one of the more recent contributors to the article, I don't feel the article is ready for FAC and as Laser brain has pointed there are multiple MoS issues. David and I were working on it in April and had put it up for peer review, but we both got bogged down with other things. I know my time on Wikipedia lately has been sparse and erratic, and I don't really have the time for an FAC of an article that is not ready. Also, I'd hate to see excess strain on already strained reviewers. If David or one of the other major contributors has the time to address issues for FAC, I'll certainly make an effort to do the same. If not, then I'd like to ask for a withdrawal. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I've got my own FAC right now, but I'll try and help out as much as I can. I think we prolly shoulda done a copyedit before the FAC, but whatever, it's here now. I'll ask around for some outside editors to help, since they'll be able to note more jargon and stuff. Either way it'll wait until tomorrow for me. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool. I'll make an effort to address issues as well. Thanks for helping out David. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Reply to Guyinblack25:

I have not worked on the article much, but I would be willing to help you address any issues raised. Perhaps some fresh blood will be good for the article. Blackngold29 18:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What makes the following reliable sources?
    • tiedtheleader.com
Have to plead the "interview" card again... it's an audio interview with a voice actor which was conducted by the site, I can't talk about their reliability as they are a gamer's blog with no special credentials. I mean, unless they were got someone to fake the voice of a well-known disc jockey... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I'm not convinced, but it might pass muster with others. Leaving this one out for others to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also an interview; the site's about page is here, I've sent them an email like gamecritics below. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site's founder responded to my queries (since it's pretty much the same as below, I guess leave for others to check?) ..."Hi David, Kikizo has been active since 1998, formerly under the name GamerWeb and operating as Kikizo since 2003. [...] all information is fact-checked and mistakes are always corrected - major updates and/or corrections to stories/features will be posted as additional updates, rather than rewriting the original piece, and in such cases this is clearly stated." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely been doing this too long with David starts predicting my replies before I make them... Yep, leaving it out for others to decide. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are independent, but they appear reliable: I've sent them an email with queries regarding their content review and editing process, hopefully that will help clear up this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From email correspondence with site owner Chi Kong Lui: "...For our reviews and feature articles, [we do fact-check]. We expected our writers to fact-check and content is reviewed by two [other] editors before publication. [...] absolutely, we would post corrections and retractions if errors are found." --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave this out for other reviewers to decide on their own. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just note that interviews aren't always reliable. Who did the interview and where it is published has a bearing on how reliable it is. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's compromise and put up a quick explanation of that, so that folks have both sources? Something like what you just said above in a footnote would work, say "(first source) is a condensed version of the information contained on Niven's site in much longer form here: (Niven's site). THat work? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, someone else already did as you suggested. James086Talk | Email 03:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, just because it's an interview doesn't make it reliable. The fact that the company is owned by a reasonably large sized media company makes it more reliable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No arguments here, I simply replaced the ref with a more notable publication (The Inquirer). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 10 "Dawson, Brett "Halo 3 Hype is justified" the publication needs disambing
  • Current ref 13, are you referencing a Wikipedia article? The link goes to a section on a wikipedia article? Or are you referencing the videos? Are they still available?
  • Current ref 41 is lacking a publisher. Also seems to be a blog?
  • Current ref 68 Longdale Holly Game Worlds in Written Words is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 70 Greene Marty First Strike Author Eric Nylund Q&A is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 72 "The Next Halo Novel is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 79 Staten Joseph The Great Hollywood Journey Part II is lacking a publisher
  • Current ref 117 Wilcox, Jon "TVG Review Halo 3" is lacking a publisher
  • THe link checker tool is showing a a dead link to an MSNBC page. Otherwise sources look good. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the link checker shows dead to this, but I'm able to access it... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to ref 41, it is a blog, but one published by IGN and written by Matt Casamassina, as such it fits WP:SPS because it is only being used to identify a claim he made, which is elaborated on later. I'll go through and fix the cites and fill them out properly when I can. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when the missing publishers/etc. are taken care of. Also have you fixed the mixing of the citation and cite templates? Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a poor computer to do that kind of find/replace stuff; hopefully I'll have all the publisher/citation issues done for your review by the end of the day (EST). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, publishers have been added to the refs you listed above and the 404 MSNBC ref has been replaced with a Microsoft Press Release on GameSpot and an article from The Sydney Morning Herald. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Another comment - You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still mixed! Ealdgyth - Talk 01:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, all uses of Template:Citation have been removed. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

  • Most of the other issues have been caught by reviewers already, so I'll focus on one: redundancy.
    • "Some aspects of the SPARTAN Project"
    • "IGN listed it as the number two top Xbox game of all time"
    • "Several spin-off games have also been announced"
    • "He and a few other SPARTAN-II's"

There's definitely others that I missed. You'll probably disagree with at least some of these - that's fine, as long as you can tell me why the words add anything to the sentence. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 20:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and removed all the instances except one I felt was needed for some clarity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Resolved comments from Gary King (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • References do not need to specify that they are in English.
  • For page numbers in references, prepend with "p." (or "pp.") when it does not appear automatically.
  • "The three main games in Halo series focus on the adventures of the main character, Master Chief." The three main games are mentioned in the lead before this, so they should be reiterated again in the body somewhere before this text.
  • "set centuries into" Unlink common words like this one.
  • "Evolved[32] Ensemble" Missing a period?
  • "'new trilogy' " Use double quotes.

These are a small sample of the issues. Gary King (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, the issues you mentioned above have been addressed except for the "p." in the references. I believe citation style guidelines do not require it unless using Harvard referencing. Any other issues you see? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'll strike out for now. Gary King (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Watched this article for a long time, and it has grown to a formidable article covering every aspect of the Halo franchise. It also meets the requirements and has improved while it has been at FAC. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments - I did another read-through this morning and I'm still not happy with the prose quality and jargon. I didn't have to go far to build a decent list of representative issues. I don't think it's within reach for this nomination period—recommend withdrawing to work on issues. I still maintain that it needs a solid copy-edit by a non-gamer who would likely catch the same issues I am seeing.
    • "In this science fiction setting, the term "Halo" refers to Halo megastructures, large orbital constructions, similar to those first popularized by the 1970 novel Ringworld by Larry Niven, though smaller in scale." Here, you are making a comparison that is quite complex for the reader to understand. They have to go to the Ringworld article, find the information about the "large orbital constructions", then imagine something smaller. Seems like a lot of work.. why not just describe them as they appear in Halo?
    • First-person shooter and game console are not wikilinked in the lead. Non-gamers will be lost.
    • The "with <noun> being" construction found in "... with Halo being the Microsoft Xbox's "killer app" and other places is poor grammar; these need to be revised. First paragraph of the body has "with the player experiencing"; check throughout.
    • The lead still does not clarify that there is a "main trilogy" until the reader stumbles on "... and soundtracks have been released for the three main games." It should be clear without clicking links that Halo: Combat Evolved is the first game of the trilogy.
    • "In Halo: Combat Evolved, the player's health is measured in both hit points and a shield which can continually recharge." What is the word "both" doing? More jargon... to most people, a "shield" is a physical device, in which case how does it "regenerate"?
    • "Later games exclusively featured the recharging shield and removed the health bar." Health bar? Isn't that where you buy diet frozen yogurt? Please don't force the reader to click away to find basic context. You haven't even mentioned a health bar yet and you can't take for granted that the reader will associate "hit points" with it.
    • "Rather than creating entirely new maps and geometry ..." What's the difference between "entirely new" and just "new"?
    • "Players can save their games as films and watch these saved films from all angles." I think "video" is a more apt term than "film", perhaps? --Laser brain (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all your concerns, Laser. I still think it's important to mention Niven's ringworlds, but I shortened the tangent to him and increased the discription. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns resolved, Kelly hi! 15:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Kelly hi! 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other two images specified above have been removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still finding issues, pursuant to my opposition above. Whenever I dive into a random section (these are all from "Main trilogy") I find lots of issues. Please, this needs to be withdrawn and given proper attention.
    • "The standard Halo 2 edition has traditional Xbox packaging, and comprised of a single disc, which contained both the single and multiplayer components." Grammar—mixed tenses and ambiguous use of "comprised"
    • "It holds the record for the longest streak as the number one game on Xbox Live, retaining the top spot for two years, after which Gears of War replaced it as the most-played multiplayer game." The term "longest streak" is too informal, and "number one game" is not defined until later. Don't make the reader skip ahead to discover the meaning. The transition of the subject of the sentence from Halo to Gears of War is awkward. The whole sentence needs reworking.
    • "A PC port for the Windows Vista operating system was later released by an internal team, dubbed "Hired Gun", which was composed of both Microsoft Game Studios and Bungie Studios personnel." What was dubbed Hired Gun, the PC port or the internal team? Internal to what? Again, readers have to skip ahead to discover the meaning of what's written.
    • Why "Halo: Combat Evolved was the first Halo video game ..." and then "Halo 3 is the third game and final game ..." Also, please: "third and final game". --Laser brain (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (lead only)

  • "the term "Halo" refers to Halo megastructures, large, habitable ringed structures, similar to Larry Niven's ringworlds" - I'm thinking the first comma should be a semi colon... it's kinda unclear for now.
  • "The Halo trilogy video games..." - what about the games outside of the trilogy? It's a bit confusing in that regard.
    • "As of 4 October 2007, all three Halo games combined have sold over 20 million copies.[8]" - same again.... you're making it sound like there is only the trilogy (which isn't correct)
  • "The cultural impact of the Halo series has been compared by Brian Bendis to that of Star Wars,[9] and dubbed those who enjoy the series the "Halo Nation"." - the stuff after the comma needs reworking.

giggy (:O) 01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Fails FACR § 1: prose. If the story section, which I just rewrote (it's been a long day, so I don't guarantee perfection), is any indication, this article has serious prose issues including: tense shifts, passive voice, exceedingly long compound-complex sentences, and weak verbs. I don't have the time or energy to do it all myself, so the help of copy-editors should be sought.
  • Regarding FACR § 2: the article has a halfway decent lead. The structure is OK, but could use some tweaking. The citations and sources are strong which is good.
  • Fails FACR § 3: images. Is it that hard to capture illustrative screenshots of rendering, characters, and gameplay? Or are there copyright issues that I don't know about? Fair use would have a strong argument here.
  • The length is OK, but I would say that there is considerable room for added depth here, particularly in cases where there are no related or sub-articles on the topic.

I would even hesitate to call this a "good" article. There is considerable room for improvement in prose, content (depth), and images. Most definitely fails multiple FACR. Lwnf360 (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments:
  • Multiple editors have done copy editing to the article, and I'm sure more will be done. (Maybe a case of too many cooks.)
  • What is missing from or needs tweaking in the lead/structure?
  • Similar images that illustrated the characters were removed (see Kelly's comments), though I'll see about adding in at least one gameplay image.
  • Length is normally not a major concern for an FA, not so much as comprehensiveness anyway. Content was restricted to a general overview of the series, though details were included when appropriate to help illustrate certain points. Some sections are divided the way they are to make the content easier to take in for the reader; the "Development" section for example. Also, further details can be found in the separate game articles (Halo: Combat Evolved, Halo 2, and Halo 3), which are all linked a couple times in the article.
  • On a side note, I'm not sure I see the benefit in telling us the article does not deserve it's GA status. If you feel it does not you are welcome to take it to WP:GAR if it does not pass this FAC, or even WP:FAR if it does.
We'll see what we can do to address your concerns, especially the prose as multiple reviewers have commented on this. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:45, 15 June 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/Halo_(series)/archive1&oldid=1140114164"