Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2: Episode One/archive3

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 not promoted 00:07, 17 May 2008.

[edit] Half-Life 2: Episode One

previous FAC (01:41, 3 April 2008)


Nominator: Article has been vastly improved since last FAC and hopefully deserves another run. Qjuad (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Co-nom Qjuad has graciously let me co-nominate this article, so I am doing so now. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - there's more useful stuff in the commentary than I'm seeing. Sceptre (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • {{cite web}} still not filled out (author, dates, et al) for the refs.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • As per Laser Brain below, I'm concerned about the use of the developer DVD. While using it for facts isn't an issue, the usage seems somewhat slanted and NPOV; for example, "Co-operative play was significantly enhanced with friendly non-player characters (NPC), most notably with the character of Alyx Vance; her AI was specifically designed for co-op play in Episode One so she would complement the player's abilities." - it all kind of reads like an advert.
      I have tried to trim down the more POV stuff, but a lot of also states "the developer said" to show that this was stated by them. Gary King (talk) 19:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Reception: weighted fine, but I was wondering if you could dig up more reviews to pad out the section more (or just make more with what you have.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, I spotted quite a few basic issues at a glance, indicating that much more work is needed before this is ready for closer examination. Suggest a general peer review and copyedit. A crucial point that has eluded a lot of video game candidates is that a non-video game person needs to help identify and weed out "game guide" language.
    • The fair use rationale is not properly completed for Image:Image-HL2EP1cover.jpg (not to mention it has "Image" in its filename). Please use {{Non-free use rationale}} to get the required elements.
    • The lead is disjointed and overly-devoted to explaining how Episode One fits in with various other packages and installations. Largely irrelevant to the general readership. It suffices to state where this falls in the progression of releases and move on to other things.
    • Too much "As with Half Life 2..." type language. Some basic context is okay but this needs to be fully comprehensive and understandable as its own article. Readers should not have to visit other Half Life articles to understand this one.
    • Jargon abound (ex. "... primarily its high dynamic range rendering capabilities and the upgraded facial animation system."; "port"; the lead will immediately lose a non-gamer)
    • Problems with reliable sources - what makes http://www.gamerevolution.com reliable? It appears to be user-submitted reviews that definitely cannot be used as sources.
      • This source has been replaced. Qjuad (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The newly added reference is even less reliable, as it appears to be a blog. It also does not exist for {{VG reviews}}. Gary King (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I'll search for a more reliable replacement. Qjuad (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Significant reliance on primary and non-neutral sources, such as the DVD, official web sites, and press releases.
    • The prose is quite rough and needs a thorough copyedit. For example, "The episode takes place immediately after the end of Half-Life 2..." (extra words); "As a direct continuation of Half-Life 2, no significant changes to the gameplay were made." (no apparent subject). --Laser brain (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's always nice to see that you are on top of things, Laser brain :) I will address these concerns along with the ones at Twilight Princess this week; I've been trying to stay away from FAC this weekend. Gary King (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced some of the DVD references with other references, and have done some copyediting to the article. Gary King (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I will go through the article again on my next pass through the FAC list; in the mean time, please consider honoring my request for a copyedit by a non-gamer. --Laser brain (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll do so but I can't guarantee that anyone will act on it because I've asked for copyedits at least once a day from multiple editors for different articles. Gary King (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We're running the risk of Sandy moving us to the Talk page, but I'll just say therein lies the reason not to have multiple articles up for review at once. --Laser brain (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
They're not mine; I'm co-noming them. I'm not the primary contributor of the articles, but I am willing to help out with them. Gary King (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I've made some more major changes to the article. Gary King (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Gary King, Qjuad has not returned to this article or the FAC since the nomination, you have at least four nominations running, each one of your nominations are taking enormous FAC resources, and FAC is not peer review. Please choose two FACs to withdraw. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have continued this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Metroid Prime 3: Corruption. Gary King (talk) 03:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I intend to give this FAC a thorough look come the weekend - unfortunately I am unable to take on the comments and suggested changes until then. Qjuad (talk) 11:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Per WP:FAC instructions, second paragraph: "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

  • "The artificial intelligence (AI) for Alyx Vance..." - who's Alyx Vance? After reading the lead I thought she was a playable character, so you might want to take a look at clarifying there, and at introducing her character here.
    • I have specified that she is computer-controlled in the lead. I think the word 'companion' should communicate her role in the game; there is no need to use a lengthy introduction for her, at least until Setting. Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In all of the Storyline refs, Valve Corporation is named and linked twice...is there any particular reason for this?
    • This is because Valve is entered in both the 'Developer' and 'Publisher' of the game. Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Eli reluctantly agrees when he sees no other option." - but in the ref you quote Kleiner...
    • The quote is when Kleiner explains what needs to be done to slow the core's progression. Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, characters are referred to by first name in prose, but by surname in references...consistency is your friend.
    • That's a good point; the reason for some of this is the last names for some of the characters are the same. The first name was used when the last name would be ambiguous. I'm not quite sure what should be done in this case? Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Dr. Kleiner appears..." - last time you referred to him as "Isaac Kleiner", again consistency is good and this section could do with a good once-over.
    • I've removed the Dr. The name issue is discussed above. Gary King (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Check en dashes in the Development section (–), in most cases I think they should be em dashes (—) and not spaced.
  • Check italics for video games in last paragraph of Development section.
  • Maybe it's just me, but of late I've only been seeing really short reception sections...I really do prefer to see at least a paragraph on each general area of critique (gameplay/graphics/sound/value/multiplayer (if appropriate)).
    • I'll see what else I can find, but this game is more of an expansion pack than a full-fledged game, so it hasn't gotten as much attention as other games have.

dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Otherwise sources look okay. Still on the road, so didn't check links. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the first one with GameSpot, and the second with EuroGamer. Gary King (talk) 03:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
All done! Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 14 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.