Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas/archive1
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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.
This article should be a featured article because it was a major part of gaming history. The Hot Coffee mod especially, this was a turning point in game ratings and gaming itself.
--Toni.Cipriani 05:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object The article is not very thoroughly referenced aside from the "Reception" section. Many references are not properly formatted. Quite a few embedded lists toward the bottom; these should be converted into prose if possible. Several sections contain only a sentence or two and should be expanded. There are nine screenshots, which may be stretching "fair use" a bit -- some are necessary, sure, but I question whether all of them are. (This is pretty minor, admittedly. Erring on the side of caution, here.) The prose needs a copyedit. Shimeru 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- OBJECT for the same exact reasons as Shimeru. —ExplorerCDT 09:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object I would love to see this become a Featured Article- I'd love it so much that I've put a bounty on the article- but it's not even close yet. I'd elaborate, but Shimeru pretty much said everything I'd want to say. -- Kicking222 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object per above. I recommend withdrawing and spending a couple more weeks on it, and then resubmit. — Deckiller 18:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree I think that even the article may be lacking in some areas, I think it is a very important part in gaming history. --Teddy.Turner 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC) This was user's first edit. Trebor 23:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with what - the Objects ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per above. With relation to the nom: being a featured article is dependent on the quality of the article, not the subject. Trebor 23:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very Well, I understand. I shall be working on this article to make it feature article worthy, and nominate it again soon. Thanks for your feedback, and I will make sure the article is better.
--Toni.Cipriani 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The references should read like # 1, 2 and 3 with a publisher date retrieved, title as some are just URLs. 'Myths and easter eggs' could probably be removed and put under the 'see also' section, it's stubby and the image crosses into 'Bonus material', which could also be removed and mentioned under the soundtrack section or the article it links to, as it's only two sentences. These sections are also unreferenced. New features is prose then turns listy at the bottom. Some more references throughout the article would be nice, esp the hot coffee mod which only has two. M3tal H3ad 10:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The nominator was blocked for being the sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. i think that means this can be pulled now. The Placebo Effect 01:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.