Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Monopoly (game)/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Monopoly (game)

Quite a nice article with plenty of background detail. Possibly ending up a bit drawn out towards the end. But mostly I think it deserves feature status because Monopoly is a well known cultural icon. You don't tend to think of it as an encyclopedia article, but I suspect many people would be drawn to it if they saw it on the main page. -- Solipsist 11:26, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Not bad. Support. Johnleemk | Talk 15:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, but the article would be better if we had a picture of an actual game in process (not to knock the diagrams, which are quite well done). [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:26, 2004 Jul 27 (UTC)
  • Object: No lead section and table width is too wide, forcing horizontal scroll bars to appear at standard res. --mav 17:24, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Well I've expanded the intro a little, but I agree it could use a little more. I'm not sure that there is a solution to the board diagram issue. We might be able to reduce the text size, or replace them with a scaled down image of the tables which link over to the original tables. On the other hand, I rather felt that the London board in particular is a good example of what Wikipedia offers that is unique on the Internet since many of the squares link through to relevant articles. -- Solipsist 15:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
      • Hey, that is pretty cool. I didn't realize it when I read the article. Exploding Boy 15:31, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
    • OK, so with the support of Bryan, the original author of the tables, I've reduced the size of the boards without complicating them too much. They won't go much smaller, and I don't think we should try. Besides, I'm not sure what standard monitor size we are working to. As it was before the boards fitted fine on my 1024x768px laptop display and we have several other feature articles that exceed the width for 800x600px. (Although, surprisingly, periodic table which I expected to be overly wide, has a rather compact table) -- Solipsist 17:42, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, if just for the most complicated wikimarkup tables i've ever seen. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:37, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Excellent article! Support. But: The article notes that "Marvin Gardens" is a misspelling. I've heard that Short Line was, in real life, a bus company, but is represented as a rail line. Is this assertion true? If so, it could be included. -- Emsworth 23:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • Aparently. An anonymous user has updated the article to that effect and it appears to be the concensus of trivia on the web. However there is one dissenting view from a local Atlantic City fan at the bottom of this page. Many of the supporting comments use the same wording, so it is possible they are all copied/derived from the one published article mentioned. To me the tram line argument sounds less plausible, so I would stick with the concensus. -- Solipsist 17:38, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. An excellent article all around, and I learned a great deal about this game that many playings never taught me (including some official rules of which I was unaware!) Denni☯ 02:50, 2004 Aug 1 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent article. Nice table. And the strategy and tactics sections have certainly given me some ideas for the next time my friends get together for a game :) Satori 03:21, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm really amazed at how the board was drawn using tables. ☞spencer195 03:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I've always loved this article. jengod 19:15, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)