Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 promoted 18:17, 6 May 2008.

[edit] Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it's a good game? I don't get why we need to give a reason, considering that if we nominated an article, then it'd already imply that we hope that the article will be promoted to FA status. Anyways, I've already asked User:Ealdgyth to take a look at the links, so that should be better than usual. One thing that may come up during this nomination is the length of the Plot section; in my opinion, it's as short as it can be without removing any important events, and it is still shorter than some FA video game Plot sections, including Final Fantasy XII. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments Links work, sources look good. (Game Trailers is part of Spike TV, thus resolving the last issue from the PR). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - This article is not comprehensive. The development section is not strong enough, by not really covering any of the development but covering marketing milestones instead. A good source of expansion would be Game Developer's March 2008 issue which features the Call of Duty 4 Post Mortem. Surely, the "Making Of" feature on the collector's edition would be of use here? There is no sales data (other than for the DLC), no breakdown on which formats were most popular, the popularity of the online game. You could also mention the piracy of the PC game,[1] the end credits song in the audio section,[2] and the aeroplane epilogue. - hahnchen 17:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    All issues have been addressed. Please recheck the article. Gary King (talk) Today, 4:17 pm (UTC-4)
    • Did it or did it not surpass Halo 3 in terms of sales? The lead suggests that it did not, yet contradicts that when it claims COD4 to be the top selling game of 2007. You also don't need that much sales detail in the lead. - hahnchen 10:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      Clarified. CoD4 sold less copies for the Xbox 360 than Halo 3 did, but when adding up the units sold for every console that the game is available on, it surpasses total units sold for Halo 3. I've also shortened the sales part a bit in the lead. Gary King (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      It has not been clarified. It was predicted to sell more than Halo 3, it has sold more than Halo 3, so why hasn't it fulfilled the prediction. The prediction does not refer to the 360 version exclusively. - hahnchen 17:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      Fixed Gary King (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      My main concerns have been addressed. I've not had time to read through the whole article yet. The piracy bit doesn't really sit with the article, but again, that's your call. - hahnchen 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Despite Hahnchen's statement, I believe that the article is very good. I thought that the article would be a bunch of video game junkies coming together to create an unstable and confusing article, but instead, I got a mature and sophisticated one. Note: All of the links checked out OK. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 21:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks. I like to think that every once in a while, gamers can put down the controller for a few seconds to contribute to the article :) Also, I am still addressing Hahnchen (talk · contribs)'s comments. This is also an FYI to everyone else, so please do not post the same criticism that has already been posted above. Cheers. Gary King (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Very informative, and unlike some game articles, the sections aren't unnecessarily long or surprisingly short. Just a bit more tweaking and it will be a great article. 24.6.160.190 (talk) 2008-04-27, last Sunday (3 days ago), 7:11 pm (UTC-4)
    • Umm...could you possibly expand on that in order for the editors of this article to actually achieve FA? What kind of tweaking would you prefer? --haha169 (talk) 2008-04-27, last Sunday (3 days ago), 7:45 pm (UTC-4)
  • Support great and vastly improved article (I remember the mess it was during the first GA nom) igordebraga ≠ 2008-04-28, last Monday (2 days ago), 01:11 am (UTC-4)
  • Comment This piece is under Graphics in the Development section: "Certain objects, such as cars and some buildings, are destructible. This makes distinguishing cover from concealment important, as the protection provided by objects such as wooden fences and thin walls do not completely protect players from harm as they do in other games released during the same time period. Bullet speed and stopping power are decreased after penetrating an object after calculating the thickness and surface type of the object." How is this covering graphics? It sounds like gameplay to me. What is currently ref 59 lists Official Xbox Magazine as a publisher, but that's not where the link goes. Either change the reference to the magazine (preferable, if you or someone else has access to it) or change the reference to make it clear that it's indirect. Pagrashtak Yesterday, 2:52 pm (UTC-4)
Renamed section. Ref replaced. Gary King (talk) Yesterday, 3:23 pm (UTC-4)
Regarding the replaced ref, I don't see the first quote in the source: 'Official Xbox Magazine called it a "multiplayer quality, quantity, and depth that rivals Halo's" and a "campaign that never lets up," with the only flaw being a few frustratingly tough areas on higher difficulties.' (ref 59) I just tried using the search function—didn't read the whole thing. Am I missing it? I didn't look for the second quote. Pagrashtak Yesterday, 3:45 pm (UTC-4)
Fixing the quotes for OXM. They are certified by me now :p Gary King (talk) Yesterday, 3:48 pm (UTC-4)
While IGN described the campaign as "still very linear" like that of its predecessors, "eschewing the concept of sandbox gameplay"—this doesn't come from IGN, it's from news.com.au. I'm starting to get worried about the sourcing of this article... Pagrashtak Yesterday, 3:56 pm (UTC-4)
The top-right of the news.com.au article containing that quote says "Article from: IGN.com"; the original is here. Gary King (talk) Yesterday, 3:58 pm (UTC-4)
Thanks, I missed that—very small text. So the article is correct when it says IGN, but is linking to the Goldstein review instead of the Ring review. Pagrashtak Yesterday, 4:08 pm (UTC-4)
I corrected it after realizing the issue. Gary King (talk) Yesterday, 4:11 pm (UTC-4)
Thanks for being so quick. Striking to make it clear it's resolved. Pagrashtak Yesterday, 4:14 pm (UTC-4)
  • Strong Oppose per serious WP:POV issues. You are telling me there were no complaints with the game? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) Yesterday, 5:47 pm (UTC-4)
    I've added some criticism to the Reception section. Gary King (talk) Yesterday, 6:13 pm (UTC-4)
    • You should probably explain in the lead why being predicted to sell better than Halo 3 was such a big screaming deal.
    • Lead should talk about development.
    • I feel like the Gameplay section does not give a good overview to people who have never played a CoD game before (in terms of its basic mechanics and such.)
    • "Zied Rieke was the lead designer for Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Michael Boon was the technical art director. The game had been in development for two years, with a team composed of a hundred people.[23] After completing development for Call of Duty 2, the Infinity Ward team decided to go in a different direction from the World War II environment of previous games in the series. They came up with two game concepts, which resulted in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and an unnamed game set to be released in the future.[23]" Development starts out ham-handed. Why should I care about this 'Zied Rieke'? Why does development start out like a credits section? It gets better by the second paragraph, but it's ungainly overall.
      Should be better now. Gary King (talk) 03:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) Today, 9:37 pm (UTC-4)

  • Comment: Why is this semi-protected? I see, what, four incidents of IP vandalism two days ago? --Laser brain (talk) Today, 11:30 am (UTC-4)
    The article's talk page is a more appropriate forum to bring this up. But to answer your question, the article has been semi-protected more than once in the past due to vandalism; when it is unprotected, vandalism continues immediately. Gary King (talk) Today, 11:49 am (UTC-4)
  • Comment The lead should summarize the article. BuddingJournalist Today, 7:13 pm (UTC-4)
    I've expanded the lead so that the first paragraph discusses the game's release, the second is the game's plot, and the third is the game's reception; this is the standard setup for game articles, I believe. Gary King (talk) Today, 7:28 pm (UTC-4)
  • Support after recent copyedit. Good work! --Laser brain (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Oppose, mostly on 1a grounds but I also share David Fuchs' POV concern above. This is a long way off from being FA quality. A thorough copyedit is needed by an uninvolved editor, meaning someone outside the "club" of regular editors on this article. Attention is needed to simple grammar, comma usage, voice, unnecessarily wordy clauses, and other matters. Some examples (but by no means a complete list of problems):
    • Sweet. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 02:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Many stylistic but ungrammatical commas throughout - please have an uninvolved editor check the whole article.
      • I've asked around for copyediting help from people I know, but they are all pretty busy with other copyediting requests at the moment. I will continue looking. Gary King (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Many marathon, ungrammatical sentences that incorporate too many ideas. There are three just in the lead. Example: "The game has been in development for two years, and uses a proprietary game engine, and includes features that include true world-dynamic lightning, HDR lighting effects, dynamics shadows, and depth of field."
    • "Expansions" is jargon inappropriate for a general audience. Please wikilink.
    • It's not clear how a game is released on a certain date and then "available to play" on another date. You say it was released Nov 6&9, then pre-released on Steam on another date, and then available to play on another date. So the Steam buyers had to wait until Nov 12 to play the game while everyone else was already playing it? That doesn't make sense.
    • The lead is highly praising of the game... and that's a problem. Strong POV represented in the last paragraph.
    • "... managed to become the top-selling game ..." No, just became.
    • "The series' move to modern warfare introduces new weapons and technology to the Call of Duty franchise..." Do you mean the game's move? Or does your source reflect the whole series, implying other and future games, moving to modern warfare?
    • "A number of additional abilities are also present..." Why not "Players have additional abilities, such as..."
    • I don't think one "performs" a stance.
    • "The game emphasizes the use of cover..." How, precisely, does the game do this?
      • Does not emphasize anymore Gary King (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • In the gameplay section, you begin using the term "player" to mean the character in the game. Those are not the same thing. The player is the person sitting at the game console or whatever, and I'm fairly certain they are never "within the blast radius of a live grenade".
      • Reworded a few of them for when character should be used Gary King (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "These characters' involvement in the plot occur simultaneously and overlap over the events in the game." Eep. Simple grammar, as I said above.
      • Reworded (not sure if it's correct? Let me know so I can remember and learn from it) Gary King (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Their involvement occurs and overlaps. I fixed it. --Laser brain (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "The player is often accompanied by friendly troops, but they cannot issue orders." Who can't, the player (character) or the friendly troops?
      • friendly troops; reworded Gary King (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "A series of computer laptops appear throughout the campaign, which contain enemy intelligence and can be collected to unlock game bonuses." Grammar.
      • reworded. not sure if it's right? let me know Gary King (talk) 21:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
        • It's correct now. You say a series appears, not appear. --Laser brain (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Each mode has an objective and require a unique strategy to complete the mission."
And many more. --Laser brain (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Addressed a few. Will continue doing so. Gary King (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for the fixes Gary King (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Has been copyedited. Please check again. Gary King (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Having formerly been one of the main contributors to the article, I can see that the article as it is now exceeds by far whatever I could have made it into in terms of quality. Prose has been improved, the plot adequately trimmed, and the review section is nowhere near the shambles it was only a few weeks ago. I believe that the editors who have voiced the above concerns have left nothing out, and all of these concerns appear to have been adequately addressed by the nominator. Therefore, being unable to find any further issues myself, I give the article's nomination my full support. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks! That means a lot coming from a fellow editor of this article. Gary King (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, exact same circumstances as Comandante42. Also, I'd offer issue with David Fuch's oppose, the reason there is very little criticism included is because very little criticism exists. It's been hailed as one of the greatest games of all time, certainly one of the best on the console, and a "game of the year" candidate. There's simply not much criticism to include. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks, nice to see support from another helpful editor to the article. Also, I agree that it was hard to find criticism for the game. Some exists, but a lot of what I found was from unreliable sources. Gary King (talk) 05:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not clear to me if Images have been checked: please ask Elcobbola (talk · contribs) or Black Kite (talk · contribs) to have a look and weigh in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have issues with the rationale for Image:Callofduty4mwfcov.jpg. The rationale states that it is used for critical commentary and discussion within the article, but I can't see any. -- Naerii 20:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Updated Gary King (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Image:Call Of Duty 4 MP Screenshot.jpg says it is of low resolution, but in fact it is of much higher resolution than necessary (compare to other fair use screenshots in the article). -- Naerii 20:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the caption given to the image in the article either, come to that. -- Naerii 20:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Image shrunk, caption changed Gary King (talk) 20:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment (mind you, I have worked on the text of this article to help gameplay, but not completely involved in the images, so this may make this comment moot):
    • Image:Call Of Duty 4 MP Screenshot.jpg
      • Would be better if it actually showed the flag being captured and one or two more player models; in fact, here's where if all the HUD can be included, it should be.
        • I'll do that if I get around to reinstalling CoD4, as I don't have it with me right now. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Not low resolution, needs to be scaled down to under 0.1 megapixels (no apparent reason to have high resolution) (fixed from (ec))
    • Image:Cod4 captain price.jpg
      • Save for showing Cpt Price, this scene is relatively non-notable (the engine shot below, however, shows him nicely, so this can be replaced). I would think that either the initial scene showing the person being dragged to be assassinated, or the bomb going off would be more appropriate to be included here (both being without the weapon model in the way). Alternatively, drop this one and use the image below (approaching the drifting tankers in the first mission during the middle of a storm is a nice dramatic shot) as it still introduces Cpt Price, and also shows the graphics at the same time.
    • Image:Cod4 game engine.jpg
      • Not low resolution, however this is a case where it can be justified that a higher resolution is necessary to showcase the lighting and weather effects. However, this needs to be stated in the fair use rationale.
        • Updated Gary King (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The image page still states "Low Resolution? yes" and "The image is web-resolution", which isn't the case. Somewhat of a side note, but it's also used in Personal computer game without rationale, and seems to be replaceable there. Pagrashtak 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Removed low resolution comments Gary King (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Can more be stated in the text on what modifications or other special features had to be done on the graphics engine? There's a line about it in the text, but that's all. If this cannot be justified more, and a different picture is used for the story, this should be dropped.
    • Image:Callofduty4mwfcov.jpg
      • (Nit) the FUR for this for the Call of Duty (series) is a copy/paste for this article, and technically is not being used for the exactly the same reason on the series page. Dunno if that is a FA dealbreaker or not but should be corrected. --MASEM 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images

  • Image:Call Of Duty 4 MP Screenshot.jpg - yes, an image of the flag being captured is reasonable, but is there a better one available, perhaps showing the flag itself? (I wouldn't object this image, just trying to improve it).
  • Image:Cod4 captain price.jpg - looks decorative to me, I'm afraid - not discussed in the text.
  • Image:Cod4 game engine.jpg - no problem, subject to what is noted above.
Black Kite 20:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Edit: I note after I edited, that my comments were echoed further up the page. Well, great minds think alike ;) Black Kite 20:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Concerns addressed Gary King (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for image concerns to be struck or resolved here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Yes, my concerns addressed, though I still think there could be a better image of the flag capture. It's not a deal-breaker, though. Black Kite 17:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.