Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battlefield 2142/archive1

Battlefield 2142

I am nominating this article for Featured Article, because it has all the information you need, it is well formatted, contains pictures, is not subject to vandalism, and the information is correct. Flubeca 01:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Well, I nominated it. Flubeca 01:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Big section in the middle is basically a GameFAQ and it doesn't provide sufficient insight into how the game plays for an outsider. Sockatume 01:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A bit too "game guidish." It would make a good good article, but it still has some way to go for featured article. Focus some more on the development and reception, and cut down on the rumors. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong object No information on the development of the game. Lots of WP:MOS problems, as far as comma usage, italicizing game titles, refs going after punctuation, no capitalization of words in headings (except for the first words and proper nouns), etc. Tons of one-sentence paragraphs. The middle section is, as Sockatume (great name!) said, just a giant GameFAQs page... and I hate GameFAQs. Most of the text lacks intrawiki links- between that and the Manual of Style problems, I could easily slap a {{wikify}} tag on it. The trivia section is rather unnecessary. Please read WP:WIAFA. -- Kicking222 02:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I did the WP:FN fixes, but the article is not ready for FAC; recommend the article go through peer review to prepare for FAC. Sandy (Talk) 02:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object as per Kicking222. I will however, nominate it as a Good Article. --S onicChao ^talk 14:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My advice would be to check the structure of existing FA game articles. For instance, BF2142 needs a good reception section at the bottom. --Zeality 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Object "Battlefield 2142 (abbreviated BF2142) is a first person shooter using a modified engine of Battlefield 2 set in the 22nd century, during a new ice age. Battlefield 2142 was released on October 18, 2006 in the US and October 20, 2006 in the EU." What the heck is a "first person shooter?" Oh, wait, release dates, it's not a battlefield, it's not some famous sniper, it's not a person, it's a game. Article is not written for a general audience, no idea what it even is without quite a bit of reading, that I'm not willing, as a general reader, to do, since the article is obviously not written for a general audience. Just back out of it for a bit, and pretend you're trying to explain what this is to your neighbor's grandmother who doesn't have a computer or television or know what a DVD is. KP Botany 17:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First person shooter is (at least I think) another way of saying Role-playing. I don't know if there is a slight difference, but that's the idea. (You shoot from the first person position) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well, it's just not general enough to tell someone who doesn't already know what it is. "Battelfeild 2142 is a first person shooter computer game," or is it a video game? And if so, what platform? The article is entirely about the game for gamers. This isn't a gamer mag, it's an encyclopedia. KP Botany 23:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object - get rid of the entire 'Weapons and equipment', 'Vehicles', 'Ranks' and 'Maps' sections. Game guide information is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. Reference the 'Rankings' and 'Punkbusters' issues under 'Bugs'. Reference the 'Pre-order bonuses' section. The introduction should be 2 or 3 paragraphs, not 2 sentences, that summarise the article, and assert the importance and notability of the game. Proto::► 13:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - Per the reasons above, you might want to take this to Peer Review, or ask people at the Computer games Wikiproject about ways to improve it. Straight away, my main concerns would be:
- It needs a longer introductory paragraph.
- There's too much "useless" game guide information. Instead of listing all the weapons and ranks and what they do, talk about how the unlock and ranking system actually works. I think listing the maps and the classes are fine though.
- You need a few paragraphs on the critical reaction to the game, instead of just listing the bugs. How well did it do in reviews? How many copies were sold? How popular is the game compared to its predecessors? Sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings can help, and WP:CVG/M may be able to establish print sources for you.
  - - hahnch e n 16:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too repetitive and should have more information aside from the units and weapons. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 20:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is more of a game strategy guide and game FAQ... -Advanced 18:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me! This is also current Good Article nominee. What's this about?[1] I thought the idea was to go from GA to FA, not try out for both at once? KP Botany 22:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]