Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Overlord (2007 video game)/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 SandyGeorgia 23:59, 3 March 2009 [1].

Overlord (2007 video game)

edit
Nominator(s): Stabby Joe (talk)

As the primary contributor to the article's current shape, I nominate this video game article for Featured Article (FA). The article presents a good deal of information on the game's gameplay, story, development, balanced reception and details on other linked products. Edits made thus far have been stable, without recurring vandalism nor any indication of such in the future. The information is sourced, and the images are appropriate for the text content. The article has gone through a successful Good Article and A-Class article Nomination. Stabby Joe (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, will look into those. Altough can I quickly ask will it matter when the access date added even if it was accessed before? Stabby Joe (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Doesn't matter when the access date is, as long as the source still is correct for the information in the article and its still a live link. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. I should quickly point out that Game Rankings is under maintaince or something right now, just in case it looks like the link isn't working. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref format comments -- Issues found with WP:REFTOOLS (copy-and-pasted).
  • Some refs are duplicates, a name reference should be used.
  • {{cite web | url = http://www.theaudioguys.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=80 | title = Overlord Development Blog - Part One | publisher = The Audio Guys | date = 2007-08-30 | accessdate = 2007-11-12}} Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • A Multiple refs contain this content, a named reference should be used instead
  • Different references are using the same name.
  • name=dev1 Multiple references are given the same name
  • GR360 Multiple references are given the same name
  • GRPC Multiple references are given the same name
  • DLCnews Multiple references are given the same name
  • PS3 Multiple references are given the same name
  • ignpc Multiple references are given the same name
  • wizardspeech Multiple references are given the same name--TRUCO 21:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could elaberate on this issue please, I'm not sure what the problem is currently. Stabby Joe (talk) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text not in italics is the problem that was found, the italics is the suggestion on how to fix it. I explained in the main headers what should be done and the sub headers are the examples.--TRUCO 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. This article needs MoS cleanup; I got some of it and left some sample edits, but there is more. I also saw some British spelling, but US dates; which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now when you say US dates, is it any certain mention of dates or in general because if its the later then I'm not sure what needs to be done. Its UK spelling BTW. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She means that even though you use UK spelling, you also US-style dates (i.e. month before day—January 1 instead of 1 January). Consistency is needed, either use UK spellings and date formats or US spellings and date formats. Seems as if it would be easier to convert dates to UK format. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nowhere close to 1a. 1b concerns regarding the Development section. Not impressed when I see sentences like "The game was in development for over a year and a half which began in early 2006[3] and was first announced in May that same year,[4] with gameplay being unveiled at E3 2006." (third sentence of the article, no less) and "The game features a corruption feature, similar to that of the Fable games, but allowing the player to "be evil... or really evil,"[4] where certain actions and choices affect different aspects of the story and gameplay." Since when is "satire" a verb? "Early concept art seemed to show the Overlord, while roughly armoured the same as in the finished product, with a clearly visible human face as opposed to a dark covered shadow with lit up eyes." <-- cited to the screenshots(!); see WP:NOR. Why are the Development sections of video game FACs so often poorly fleshed out? Is this really what passes for GA/A-class nowadays? BuddingJournalist 17:08, 1 March 2009 (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/Overlord_(2007_video_game)/archive1&oldid=1138468564"