Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars/archive2

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 by Ucucha 21:22, 22 February 2012 [1].

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 14:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's a GA, and has been peer reviewed. I believe it's ready for FA. :) Khanassassin ☪ 14:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Inadequate reception. Not a comprehensive overview of the critical consensus. Lacks commentary from the release of the game. Who are "Game Over Online"? Who cares about Mr Bill? Why is the GBA version such a heavy focus? And yet, you don't include a single Playstation review? You need reliable sources contemporary with the release. This means more sources like PC Gamer. I also think you have weighted the "Director's Cut" reception very heavily as opposed to the original release, you have the same amount of reviews listed in that section as the original, even though those sources do not have as much influence now with the app generation than the specialist press did then with the game's original release.

Anyone can quickly Google what we think of Broken Sword now, we can just scan the Metacritic score. What a Wikipedia should show us, is what we thought of it then. - hahnch e n 15:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think that's a reason to fail it. It can be easily fixed. --Khanassassin ☪ 15:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that it can't be fixed. But an article that is not comprehensive/well-researched fails the FAC process. Here's a start - the Computer Gaming World review.[2] I also have Retro Gamer's the Making of Broken Sword article, but you'll have to email me if you need it. - hahnch e n 16:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks! I could surely use the making of, please! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Hahnchen. Not comprehensive. Also, relies on some questionable sources. No indication of how Game Over Online and Mr Bill meet WP:RS. --Laser brain (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently removing Game Over Online and Mr. Bill, and adding sources like GameSpot etc. So please, wait --Khanassassin ☪ 16:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Khanassassin. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant oppose I peer reviewed this and the comments migrated from the PR page to Khanassassin's talk page. When I was asked if the PR was done, I replied in part The language needs work and I think the plot section could be made more concise. If you get those taken care of and want me to take a second look, please ping me then diff. To my mind this meant that the artcile was not ready for FAC (as the goal of the PR was stated to be FA), although I did not say so explicitly. No edits of any kind were made to the article after I made these comments and before it was nominated at FAC. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.