Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Populous: The Beginning/archive1

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 14:14, 17 September 2007.

Populous: The Beginning

A shorter article, but that hasn't stopped FAs before. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - In this case, it does. This was the first Populous to not have Molyneux at it's helm, that's not even mentioned. There's a fundamental difference between this game and those preceding it, in that you have direct control over your subjects, making it more of an RTS. Why did they do this? In 1998, the reviews that had the editorial clout, the influence on buyers, were not the online guys like IGN. They were PC Gamer, Edge, EGM et al. The reception section should reflect this. Incidentally, there's a PC Zone review here if you're interested. There may be a few resources available in WP:CVG/M. How were the sales figures like? - hahnch e n 09:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added in the PC Zone review. EGM doesn't have the review; no one here has the Edge review. I have requested the PC Gamer mag, but the user is on wikibreak. As for why they made it an RTS, no review/preview I have found has offered any explanation. As for sales figures, as I think I explained how that wasn't going to happen last FAC... David Fuchs^(talk) 20:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a game released in 1998, the majority of press material relating to this game is going to be in the magazine press, not online. The Populous franchise was of a heck of a lot more importance than Iridion. It fared well enough to warrant an expansion pack in the UK, I'm guessing this probably charted at some point. It will have been tracked by NPD Group and Chart-track. User:X201 has the Edge review. - hahnch e n 18:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... I may be blind, but besides a "Making of..." section in 2002, the actual Edge review is not in CVG/M. As for the sales figures, I've been trying the NPD and google searches, and I cannont find anything... David Fuchs^(talk) 19:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's not clear, but User:X201 has every edition of Edge. - hahnch e n 18:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Indeed he does. I've added in bits of the review, is the section more to your liking now? David Fuchs^(talk) 20:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Setting section omits important information like the technology level of the game. Reception is bad per Hanchen. Not well illustrated per criterion 3. Citations of the game manual are not well formatted. No system requirements information. User:Krator (t c) 13:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you want the instruction manual cited? David Fuchs^(talk) 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I have added system requirements and two more screenshots. What in god's name do you mean by "technology level"? David Fuchs^(talk) 21:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technology level - an example of information that was omitted from the setting section. For example, do the units in this RTS beat each other up with sticks, swords, or sharks with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads?
The citations of the game manual are malformed - the year is first, reading "(1998) in Bullfrog ...".

User:Krator (t c) 22:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay- citations are fixed with date, and I've added a sentence or two describing the technology. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you're taking issue with is the template syntax. It puts the date/year first by default, I'm assuming because there is no author. See Final Fantasy X, for example. David Fuchs^(talk) 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the technology level was an example of the kind of information missing from the Setting section. It needs to be expanded into this direction more. User:Krator (t c) 23:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Sorry for being so dense, but what exactly are you looking for in addition to the content there? I've looked at other FA-class games with 'setting' sections, and cannot find much beyond what is already in the article that applies to Populous. David Fuchs^(talk) 00:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See StarCraft#Setting; Supreme Commander#Setting as examples. Note that these are not particularly good setting sections, but they do provide some of the information I miss in this article. A setting section should describe the fictional word the game takes place in, with enough detail for the reader to form a picture of that world. Basically, describe what the article Azeroth (world) does in one section, and for Populous' world. The sentence on technology level is a good start, but more is needed. For example, what do the people look like, how are they organised, where did they come from, why are they beating each other up, etc. Include helpful internal wikilinks where appropriate. For example, tribalism and shamanism may provide good background information. User:Krator (t c) 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.