Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Harbingers/archive2
- 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 Karanacs 17:51, 7 September 2010 [1].
The Harbingers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Featured article candidates/The Harbingers/archive1
- Featured article candidates/The Harbingers/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): d'oh! talk 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because after a copyedit and a bit of a expansion since the last FAC, I feel this article meets the FA criteria. d'oh! talk 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 06:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments -
- What makes the following reliable sources?
Footnote 6 - "The Gatekeeper..." the "original" link doesn't work any longer, might as well remove it.- I have a concern about the number of sources consulted here. What I'm seeing is that there was an article in this horror fanzine Bloodsongs and that's pretty much the only major discussion of the game outside the game booklet/game website.Is there nothing else? I did a google news search and turned up nothing at all.
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right BGG is not a reliable source as its a wiki too I believe, but the reviews on BGG was used to show the reception of the game by gamers. WOF was the biggest fan website for the game on its release as such the creators did a few interviews with them. Only the interviews was used in the article. For footnote 6, the dead link was removed. I do have other sources for this game, like an article in the Business Review Weekly, which back ups most the other sources, but didn't add much more other than one piece of information, which is why it was largely left out. I also just added info from an article in the The New York Times. 15 years has past since this game was released, so sources was a bit hard to come by. Thanks for the comments. d'oh! talk 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WOF and BGG still won't work as sources, however, as you need to show a reputation for fact checking, etc. Right now the vast majority of the article is sourced to primary sources - the game itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WOF and BGG has both been removed. The use of primary sources doesn't appear to be a issue in other FA articles, but if its is a issue I will try and address that issue. d'oh! talk 04:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Respectfully, that particular FA was promoted 2 and a half years ago. I'll leave the last issue out for other reviewers to consider. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK in terms of prose. A few points:
- "Players who fail to become Harbingers within ten minutes must play the main game as "Soul Rangers"—miserable scavengers who play to their own rules." It's towards the top, so I bothered to scan for reps. "who obey their own rules" might avoid play play?
- top ten best-selling games.
- Typo space after atmosphere) ,
- then then. Why not remove both, since we know its a sequential narrative.
- "until either they are released by the Gatekeeper,[18] or they collect the Keystone" ... perhaps "until either they are released by the Gatekeeper[18] or collect the Keystone"
- six different colour Keystones: the difference in colour is the requirement? If so, "six Keystones of different colour" might be clearer.
- Should Video board game be a "main article"? I'd have thought a link within the text, or in "See also" at the bottom.
- Does the fair-use image pass our WP:NFCC 3 and 8?
- Down the bottom, a link to "List of Australian inventions" (must be a small list). Isn't this of sufficient interest to tell us during the narrative? Tony (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All done. The images should pass both #3 and #8, since both the game board and video is detailed in the article, and the images aid the readers understanding of the game. Trying to combine the two images or drop one will confused the reader and mislead them, into thinking the game is only a board or video game. Thanks. d'oh! talk 11:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.