Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doom
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Doom
This was a FA for a long time, but got removed two months ago since I felt there were major problems with it (see talk page and the FARC discussion). I have now rewritten large parts of it to address my concerns (diff). The new structure is much better, and irrelevant information has been removed while relevant information that was missing has been added. I think I have gotten rid of all factual errors, and inline citations have been added for several specific facts (though bits of referencing remains to be done, but I think it's good enough already, and I'll be working on that part). Fredrik | talk 1 July 2005 22:55 (UTC)
- 'Support. The article looks very good, and the fact that the user who was unhappy with it before and got the FA status stripped is now nominating it to be featured again is a credit to Fredrik and his drive to improve upon an article which many wouldn't touch because of the FA notice. You were bold in editing, and have done well. Congrats. Harro5 July 1, 2005 23:40 (UTC)
- Support. One of the best looking articles I've seen on Wikipedia. -- A Link to the Past July 2, 2005 08:18 (UTC)
- Support. Comprehensive, brilliant prose and great interlinking of other wikiprojects. Do I need anything else in my foobar player to play the video file? - Mgm|(talk) July 2, 2005 12:47 (UTC)
- Support. However, needs mention of the non-game spin-offs - novels, the movie that is out in October (also weren't there comics?) Morwen - Talk 2 July 2005 14:07 (UTC)
- Fixed. There is also more detailed information at Doom spin-offs and homages. - Fredrik | talk 2 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)
- Support, one of the best on Wikipedia.
Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 2 July 2005 20:09 (UTC) - Comment/Question Is there established precedence in featuring an article that contains Spoiler Warnings? The article itself looks good, my concern is that it can not be wholly read without reading a potentential spoiler. Perhaps that section should be rewritten or deleted. Autopilots July 2, 2005 21:11 (UTC)
- Never thought about that; I don't really see a problem with it, though. We have a lot of FAs about literary/entertainment works that give out the plot to varying degrees; I never saw anyone complain. Phils 2 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
- Yes, the precedent has been set - we've had numerous literature articles featured on the main page. The first one I can remember was Foundation Series featured in mid-2004 (for the record, I'm the primary author). Generally, when doing the write up, I try to avoid giving any spoilers (in the literal sense) -- things that would give away important plot details or the ending. →Raul654 July 3, 2005 22:52 (UTC)
- Never thought about that; I don't really see a problem with it, though. We have a lot of FAs about literary/entertainment works that give out the plot to varying degrees; I never saw anyone complain. Phils 2 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
- Support. Looks good. Phils 2 July 2005 21:18 (UTC)
- Support. One of the best pop culture articles I've seen. MechBrowman July 3, 2005 00:20 (UTC)
- Support. Looks fantastic, has a video clip (increases media project visibility), is of a (relatively) neglected FA category, well-written, well-linked, excellent! Batmanand 3 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
- Support, extremely professional and well-written. Bishonen | talk 4 July 2005 05:52 (UTC)
- Support. I also commend the process you went through to bring the article to the quality it's at now. --DanielNuyu 4 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)
- Support. A good take of the cult game. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 6 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
- Support. Cult game. great article. Jacoplane 7 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)
