Wikipedia:Featured article review/Midtown Madness/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

Notified: WikiProject Video games

Review commentary

I am nominating this featured article for review because I noted these issues a week or so ago on the talk page and they haven't been fixed. The major contributor, Giggy, has only made three edits on Wikipedia since 2009, the last of these being in June 2013; I think it's safe to say he's not around.

Some informal and awkward writing, e.g. "cops" (which is actually linked to police officer), "damaged out".
Also some vague writing, e.g. "somewhat realistic", "The game is distinctly different from other racing games" (What other racing games? Roughly what percentage of them, or what subgenre of them?).
The first two paragraphs of Gameplay are slightly wanting of detail. I don't feel like I really understand the individual modes.
Not a big deal, but there's one dead link.
Gameplay needs some extra citations.
The Vehicles section is unnecessary and should be merged into Gameplay as a table or list in the prose. Also needs sources, particularly for the parenthetical information about the Red Rocket and Monster Truck.
Reception is poorly organized: the second paragraph lapses near the end into information unrelated to sound, and the first one could probably be split into two as it covers a great deal. Also, the use of "fun" is vague and probably unnecessary. Overall, Reception could stand to be reorganized from scratch.
The screenshot needs a much more comprehensive FUR and should probably go in Gameplay.
In addition, czar states that completeness alone would keep this from passing an FAC today.

Tezero (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to be a major contributor on this, but just a note: if you run this article through the Checklinks tool, there are at least seven dead links (five 404s and two 101s. Also, I didn't check them by hand, but there are 11 uncategorized redirects that could potentially be broken).--chrisFjordson (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and updated this article's citations (although I wasn't able to update the dead link Tezero mentioned). Notes:

Ref 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 25 - Updated link to current URL. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
Ref 3 - It has been concluded that Moby Games is an unreliable source. I'm moving it here. The claim already has a source, but it's so general that it should be rewritten entirely. I'm removing the second use of this source (MB parameter in the video game reviews box) since it no longer displays on the page anyway.

Midtown Madness for Windows. MobyGames. Accessed July 12, 2008.

Ref 6, 7, 23 - Broken link updated with Wayback. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
Ref 9 (now 9&10) - I split this into two refs since it cites two URLs. The ref numbers here reflect this change. Added Wayback URL. Added cite web template. Updated citation data. Note: the claim this citation supports is almost certainly outdated.
Ref 11 - Updated with cite journal template. Added volume and issue numbers.
Ref 13, 14, 18- Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
Ref 16 - Added Wayback URL. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
Ref 17 (!)- I'm not surprised this is the only one that actually had a dead link tag. There is no archive on Wayback or WebCite, and the only archive.today snapshot is a 404 page. As far as I can tell, the page is no longer hosted on the original website under any URL. The claim this one supports is very specific. I'm not sure how replaceable it will be.
Ref 21 - Standardized dates.
Ref 24 - Broken link updated with archive.today. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
Ref 26 - Added cite journal template. Updated citation data, added issue number. Note: in the ref parameters (before my edit), this bit was commented out. I've removed it since it doesn't seem to do anything.

ftp://ftp.mitaphane.com/Wikipedia/MidtownMadnessReview.jpg/

Ref 27 - Added cite book template. Added ISBN. Updated citation data.

All links (except Ref 17) and citation data should be good. I did not check the content of these URL to see if they support the claims in the article.--chrisFjordson (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed vehicles section and unsourced paragraph from gameplay, they were not part of the article during the original FAC and they've been unsourced for years. --Mika1h (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that was the thing to do, but the article is even more incomplete now. Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have this FAR on my watchlist. ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 05:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I split the first paragraph in "Reception" into two. ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 05:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midtown_Madness&diff=607592381&oldid=607232307 ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 06:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made a GoCE request to copyedit this article. See diffs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors%2FRequests&diff=607728388&oldid=607726942 ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 04:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank @Jaytwist: for copyediting Midtown Madness. I'm happy! (=D) ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 05:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took down my Midtown Madness GoCE request. ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 02:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Some improvements were made in the review section but the review seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per my yet-unaddressed concerns. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Tezero's concerns are valid, and since the main contributor hasn't been active in a while, I'll have to concur with him.--Retrohead (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the update JimmyBlackwing, I withdrawn my vote.--Retrohead (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has seen vast improvement since the nomination in May. What still needs to be done to save it? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think Gameplay still needs some more detail. Reception is looking much better, though. Tezero (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)~~[reply]

Tell ya what. I'm pretty much busy for the rest of today as well as most of Saturday, and tomorrow I'm gonna spend following through on various obligations like drawing enemy sprites for a game my friend is developing. I think that the article is probably okay aside from comprehensiveness in Gameplay, so at some point during these three days I'll try to research it a bit - watch gameplay videos, maybe flip through a player-created guide - and then add whatever I think is necessary. Either way, no matter how much I've gotten around to doing, I'll remove my "delist" vote no later than 12:00 am (Eastern U.S. time) on Sunday. (If for some reason I forget or something comes up, count this as a "keep" vote in advance.) Tezero (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the best-written FA I've ever seen, but after some small content additions just now I think it fits the criteria. Kudos to those who have helped take care of other issues during this FAR. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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