Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Europa Barbarorum/archive1

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 GrahamColm 07:44, 13 May 2012 [1].

Europa Barbarorum

Featured article candidates/Europa Barbarorum/archive1

Nominator(s): It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that I have cleaned its prose up, getting it to GA status, and have since removed forum-post references. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

Has this article been through the WP:PEER REVIEW process? That is often a great help in ensuring success in the FA nomination process.
Put footnotes at end: e.g. " ... they called the mod "breathtaking" in an official[46] statement.[47][48]". Putting the footnote 46 in the middle of the sentence disrupts the readers experience. Unless there is a compelling reason, it should be at the end. The fact that the one source is for the "official" claim can be noted in the footnote itself.
Creators? - The Lead should explicitly state who the creators were. A casual reader may get the impression that this is an official game, when in fact it is a vartiant created by .... who? Fans? Paid? unpaid? In any way affiliated with the original game creators? All that should be explained in the lead.
Define team: Similar issue as above: the article several time mentions "The modification's development team's stated aim..." but never defines who that team is.
Reviews - Many game articles include an Info box which lists a handful of review scores. Can that be done for this article? Or do mods not get scored?
define term: " as the best mod ..." - need to define "mod" probably after first use of modification, as in: "modification (mod)".
Wording: "... felt that such factions' representations in Rome: Total War conformed more ..." - the "faction's representations" is not worded smoothly. Suggest re-write the whole sentence.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

"the development team had previously stated..." - source?
FN1: don't italicize UK
FN2: author profile is only open to subscribers; can you confirm that it's the development team?
Several of your web sources are missing publisher info
Use consistent italicization
Be consistent in whether websites are cited using website name or publisher
What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This
Don't use hyphens in titles where endashes should be used instead

Leaning oppose at this time. An awful lot of self-published/primary sources here, added to some less-than-stellar sites. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment After five days and no response from the nominator, I have decided to archive this nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 07:42, 13 May 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.