Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 07:46, 15 March 2007.

[edit] Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War

I've tried to model this article after Clyde Miller and Deckiller's Empires: Dawn of the Modern World; they helped me on this one too. The article has improved from Start to A-Class, and I thought it might be ready for FA. I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks! · AO ^Talk 00:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support — it's looking very good; it might need a final comb by 2-3 copy-editors to ensure the prose is optimum. — Deckiller 01:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support As AndonicO said, I did do some editing and collaborating with this. However, I just took one last read, and if there's something in need still, I can't find it.--Clyde (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support — looks pretty good. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support besides the fact that isn't as illustrated as other VG FA's, it's alright. igordebraga ≠ 17:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I based it almost identically on Empires, which is an FA. Starcraft, the only other strategy video game FA (I think), is differant though. Is that what you mean? · AO ^Talk 17:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose right now. The Campaigns section is quite awkward — "Also in the game are two campaigns". The Reception section uses a lot of direct quotes — it would be better to write some of this in your own words, if possible. It's very difficult to make the prose flow well when linking together quotes like that. Someone's taken a stab at it, but it still feels awkward. --- RockMFR 05:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also, is there a reference for "achieved high sales in the United Kingdom"? I'm just skimming, so I might have missed it. --- RockMFR 06:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• The link for the high rankings is to Heaven games, since ELSPA has been updated already. It's this one. Is the campaign section better? I'm not sure if you meant the whole thing, or just the introduction. I'll try to improve the reviews section tommorow. · AO ^Talk 11:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I removed parts of comments, and made sure that the quotes weren't too long. Is this better? · AO ^Talk 11:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the whole article still seems to be missing something, but I'll withdraw my opposition. --- RockMFR 20:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Missing what? I'll try to fix it if you specify a bit more. Maybe it's too dull or short? · AO ^Talk 22:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Looks generally good, a few thoughts:

• third person shooter - should there be a hyphen between "third" and person"? Done
• Lead could probably be condensed to two paragraphs, as it's a fairly short article. Done
• Reviews of the game were mixed; however, it won two awards, and was commercially successful in the United Kingdom - "however" isn't really contradicting anything, so I find it slightly jarring. The reviews being "mixed" implies it will have been received partially positively. Done
• Critics have rated Rise and Fall many times, giving it both positive and negative scores - um, what? Try rewording. Done
• The graphics were examined as well; they were well liked with high graphics settings, though criticised when they were low. - the whole sentence seems rather odd to me. Also, there may be hyphens needed between "well" and "liked", and "high" and "graphics". Done

This could probably do with a copyedit to weed out clumsy phrases. Trebor 22:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it better now? · AO ^Talk 12:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.