Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 2

Add links
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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

Halo 2[edit]

Didn't get a thorough consensus last time I nominated it; I addressed people's concerns, but they didn't return and pass judgement... previous FAC below. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

→previous FAC here.
  • Support - looks nice, lots of work done. SamBrozden 12:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Article is out of date, especially the legacy section (Which is a misnomer anyway). It needs to be updated to include the PC version. 05 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll look. Unfortunately those all come from compressed cinematics from hbo, I had to clean it up some but the black shows most artifacts. I'll see if there's another one, unfortunately thats the only time you see the two together. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this means... what? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dåvid Fuchs's reply was in response to History Fan's original comment, "Too many video games." There are several printed sources — for example, the game manuals, which could be considered printed, and GamePro, a magazine. S.D. 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Regardless, it's not an actionable oppose. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's a great article - but the subject matter is tired. Theres a huge amount of video-game articles out there. Wow, YAVGA (Yet Another Video Game Article). How about putting all that work into a subject of importance? Nice article, too bad it had to be about a video game. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can't seriously see how you can possibly justify opposing a well-written article just because its about a subject you don't find interesting... so much for 'don't be a dick'... Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to start name calling. I'm trying to give you an objective opinion of the article. It's well done, except for the subject matter (it also has no printed citations, but there's no need to get into that) The subject matter is very important. You could write the best Article in the world about pocket lint, with great formatting and lot's of pictures, and it's still just an article about pocket lint. I mean no offense. It's a great article, but so are a bazillion others about video games.Sue Rangell[citation needed] 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This opposition, as with the one above, are not legitimate complaints and are therefore unactionable. Halo 2 may just be a video game, but it is an incredibly notable one. Qjuad 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unactionable oppose. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I still oppose on the grounds that there is not even a single printed citation or source. It's all websites, not a single ISBN in the bunch. Websites are at best secondary sources, and at worse not to be counted as sources at all. Almost everything is from a single website (bungie.net). The dates are a mess too. A lot of dates are missing. Also, in many spots the dialogue shifts from present tense to past tense uneccessarily, and that makes it difficult to read. Plus, it's full of DEAD LINKS! Fix that stuff, and I'll change my vote. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source is not necessarily inferior. It is simply a source that is based on primary or other secondary sources. And I fail to see how the official website of the company that made the game fails to qualify as a primary source, given their closeness to the subject at hand.--Rmky87 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Websites are treated as sources on almost every single featured Wikipedia article. There is nothing anything inherently inferior about reliable online material compared against printed material; featured video game articles such as Half-Life 2 also have only two, maybe three printed sources. The same also goes for many featured articles in the media/computer/video game categories where the most abundant sources of information will be found online. Qjuad 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bungie.net is the official website of the company who makes Halo 2. It is not an indenpendent source of information, so you should be careful what you reference from them. Awadewit 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with using only web-sources, easiest to obtain and you can verify what is cited by looking at the source... M3tal H3ad 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — issue over print citations is obsolete. Refs formatting and copy-edit are needed, however. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Great article — as igordebraga said, it's as good as, if not better than, Halo: Combat Evolved. One comment: I suggest finding a source for the following line, "The game's Campaign mode has received some criticism, from the lack of Earth-based missions, to dissatisfaction with the abrupt, cliffhanger ending that sets up the sequel, Halo 3." May I remind History Fan and Sue Rangell that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it." Cheers, S.D. 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well-written, informative, thorough, and sourced. Please fix the citation needed tag under "Reception" though. Thanks. -Bluedog423Talk 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The citation has been added. Cheers, S.D. 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose right now. A few things that need checked out:
  • Image:Halo02.jpg looks like it should be fair use, not CC.
  • Dates are needed for many of the references (for example, the GameSpot review ref should have a date parameter in the form of date=[[YEAR-MM-DD]])
  • The article still has some {{fact}} tags.
  • Should "superbouncing" and "superjumping" be capitalized? I don't think so...
  • The "Xbox Live updates" section needs wikified and more inline citations. --- RockMFR 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed the new image added, and I'm in the process of adding dates when they actually give them to me. Fixed the fact thing, I swear I must have had that sourced before, it got moved or something... capitalizations has been fixed, and I'll see about adding more inline citations to that section later. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to fix — the paragraph beginning with "In June 2006, an additional online matchmaking..." is rather poorly written — I can't really even understand what it is trying to say. --- RockMFR 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fixed. Since no one outside of Halo 2 multi knows what those playlists mean, I just folded the lead sentence into the last paragraph, reworded it, and deleted the rest. Now, for those inline citations... Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Xbox Live updates section has been improved with cleanup and more citations and links. Cheers, S.D. 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Contains {{fact}} tags. Mrmoocow 10:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't anymore. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose — several issues:
  • References — need proper formatting. For example, the game manuals do not had ID numbers and so on. See Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy VIII for manual citations. Try to fill out what you can on Template:Cite web.
  • Prose — needs a copy-edit. Someone mentioned tense problems above, and I see a few bulleted lists that need proper formatting or conversion to paragraph form. Other examples:
"Halo 2 features over 14 different human and alien weapons, many new to the series." — redundant word (different), "over" should be "more than", etc
"A common complaint regarding Halo 2's online play has been the widespread cheating, which began occurringstarted almost immediately after the game's release."
Captions have excessive periods.
Otherwise, it looks good. — Deckiller 21:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Support[reply]
Can you point me to the manual citing? I looked through their citations, and I can't find for the life of me where the manuals are cited. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example: (1999) in Square Electronic Arts: Final Fantasy VIII North American instruction manual (in English). Square Electronic Arts, 20, 24, 36. SLUS-00892GH. — Deckiller 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I filled it in for both manuals... I'll check and make sure I've got cite web format for everything (thought I did, but whatever...) Fixed your obvious suggestions, I'll do a thorough check asap. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. For references, most need author and date and perhaps publisher, and they should be all set. — Deckiller 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After fixing references, dates, and copyediting, I suggest submitting Halo 2 to the requests for FAC and FAR for a new set of eyes to look at. Happy editing, S.D. 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak oppose The only problem I currently see with the article is the lack of information in the Web Citations. While some of the misc. information might not be necessary, the date of publication and the author of the article should be included for context. If this problem were corrected I would change my opinion to a firm Support. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Citation 2 should go from this:
{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21222|publisher=Gamesindustry.biz|title=Gears of War ousts Halo|accessdate=2006-12-22}}
to this:
{{cite web|last = Gibson |first = Ellie|date = 2006-11/20|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21222|publisher=Gamesindustry.biz|title=Gears of War ousts Halo|accessdate=2006-12-22}}
That will leave the output as ^ Gibson, Ellie (2006-11/20). Gears of War ousts Halo. Gamesindustry.biz. Retrieved on 2006-12-22, which is generally nicer overall. I'd fix these myself but can't access the Wayback Machine or some game sites from this computer. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (See below)[reply]
I've added the following (Citation number: What I've added):
This is all the information I found — however, I might have easily overlooked something. Hopefully this will take care of comments about formatting references/web citations. Happy editing, S.D. 21:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little more to the few refs that S.D. missed- at this point I believe we have essentially all the info we can get on these. Some have no post dates or authors, or some (like all the bungie.net links) are screwed up due to a site redesign: while I can promise I will go back and fix each and every one of these, right now they are all 404 errors until Bungie migrates all their old stuff to the new design. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose Needs copy editing ("one which the humans have been nominally losing" -- is it called the "War of Humans losing to Covenant"?) for verb tense, grammar, punctuation; lack of formal tone ("The Master Chief manages to stow away") and other fancruft style issues (When writing about a game's story elements be sure to keep a out-of-universe perspective. Or simply put, do not describe fiction as fact.), shouldn't there be "spoiler" tags for plot synposis?, most of the "Development" section should be merged with "Reception," and break Reception into popular and critical. Obviously a lot of good work though. Madcoverboy 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
not to be nitpicky with your suggestions, especially as grammar,etc is certainly valid, but a couple points: one: spoiler tags are generally not needed for a clearly labeled 'plot synopsis' section. Secondly, reception doesn't have to be broken up into more headings. After all, its roughly divided that way anyhow. I don't see why we should merge Dev with Reception, as they are two very different things. I'll check again for oou stuff. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops — I went ahead and added spoiler tags and headers; feel free to take them off for the time being. In my opinion, development doesn't need to merged since the section "takes place" until before the game was released and reception takes it from there: after the game was released. Cheers, S.D. 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Development doesn't need to be compressed into Reception. Development is about how the game was created and the steps the company took to hype the game before release, and reception deals with how it was received after release. Also, splitting reception into popular and criticial is basically just overemphasizing the paragraph breaks, so I don't think that's necessary, unless the WikiProject has it in their formatting guide. — Deckiller 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps make subsections under Development for Audio and Video (or Havok engine or...)? The section reads like a stub and isn't well integrated with the other information around it.Madcoverboy
I agree about audio; it's only one paragraph, so it can probably be integrated into Development. — Deckiller 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Audio" has been expanded, the section "Development" could be renamed to something such as "Prerelease events" or just "Prerelease." Cheers, S.D. 02:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The PC computer game is scheduled for release on May 8, and though it may be common practice for Wikipedia feature ads to run in support of product releases, the featured article criteria (1e) say the content of an article is not supposed to change from day to day, as it surely will in the wake of the release and publicity. Furthermore, the article contains statements such as "Bungie has stated that the issue has been fixed ... for the Windows Vista port", for which so far as I know only the manufacturer has been permitted to form an opinion as of this time. I do not believe that the manufacturer's opinion of an upcoming product release is a neutral point of view. Mike Serfas 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The game has been out for 2 1/2 years now. The fact that it's now being ported to another platform isn't going to change the content of the article significantly (in other words, it will not destabilize the article, as you allude). Raul654 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the obvious qualifier that the article will need to be updated when the PC game drops. It meets my definition of stable (in that the content itself is not going through changes) and it violates no FA requirements that I see. To quote the assessment scale... "No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light" fits this article pretty well. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have put in a request with the League of Copyeditors to run through this article and fix any grammatical/prose worries. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - nearly all of the bungie.net references are dead links. Most of these seem to still be accessible through archive.org. These will need to be fixed up (use the archivedate and archiveurl parameters of {{cite web}}). --- RockMFR 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted bungie, and they assured me that eventually the links would be restored, within the next two weeks, s it would be painful to change them then switch them back. If they don't migrate everything by then, then I guess I'll have to trudge through it. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is heavily based on that source, my oppose will stand until the references can be verified. --- RockMFR 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • More stuff I noticed:
  • "Bungie was notoriously secretive and occupied with security; large pains were taken to make sure development builds were not leaked when used for marketing purposes" — source?
  • Ref #14 points to Halo: First Strike, an unreferenced article. Is this supposed to be a source?
  • Am I assuming correctly that the "Characters" section is built from in-game quotes? If so, would it be possible to actually cite these quotes? Not necessary, but it would be nice.
  • The bit about "I Love Bees" needs to be sourced (this should be easy) and probably could be expanded a bit, based on how much attention it got. --- RockMFR 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the sourcing, added a bit to the ilovebees (I'll format the links properly soon, i promise!) and I added a specific page citations for Halo: First Strike as its in poor shape. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—1a. The lead shows a density of issues with the prose that indicates the need for a thorough copy-edit throughout. Please don't just fix these examples.
    • "critically-acclaimed"—No hyphens after "-ly".
    • "On 20 June 2006, more than 500 million games of Halo 2 have been played and a total of over 710 million hours have been spent playing with it over Xbox Live since its debut,[3] and by 30 October 2006, this number was raised to four billion.[4]". Better to start with "By"? "Had" is used elsewhere, so perhaps here too. Why is one count alone highlighted with "a total of"? Is it more important? "Playing with it over Xbox Live"—Playing with? Elsewhere, it's just "playing/ed". "Its" could refer to Xbox Live or to Halo 2. "Was raised to" is awkward here; why not just "rose to"?
    • "genocidal collective of alien races"—more comfortable as "collective of genocidal alien races", I think.
    • "As of 9 November 2005, over seven million units of the game have been sold worldwide, making it the best selling game for the Xbox." Same problem with tense: use "had", since the date is in the past. Best-selling requires a hyphen.
    • "many new to the series"—The ellipsis is too much here; insert "of which are". Tony 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad to see you back, Tony. Like I said above, I'd help, but I've been swamped. — Deckiller 03:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other issues with prose — although I changed to a support, I agree with Tony that more touching up is needed. Other examples:
    • "Halo 2 takes place in the same science fiction universe created by Bungie Studios for Halo." Is there a need to mention Bungie Studios here?
    • "The main player characters are..." "playable" characters may sound better. Let's face it, the geeks who invented some of these RPing terms weren't word nerds.
    • "The player assumes the dual roles of Master Chief and the Arbiter," "dual" might be redundant here, especially with the word "and".
    • "The game comes to a close with the Arbiter's mission to stop the firing of Halo, aided by fellow Elites as well as surviving members of In Amber Clad's' crew." can be trimmed to: "The game concludes with the Arbiter's mission to stop the firing of Halo...."

— Deckiller 03:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These have been fixed, but here are some more examples:
"As of November 9, 2005, over seven million units of the game have been sold worldwide, making it the best selling game for the Xbox." Over should be "more than"
"...and a bonus cinematic called "Another Day on the Beach", amongst other features." "amongst" should be "among".
I have some time right now, so I'll see if I can give you a hand. — Deckiller 16:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Covers everything well. Enjoyable read. Buc 21:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is quite the article and the immense copyediting that can be seen throughout the course of this FAC has rendered it close to flawless. Nice job. I don't see the rationale behind "Oh no, not another video game article" that I believe Sue brought up. What if someone created an article about pocket lint, as you mentioned, and it was so well-written and well-referenced that most people online went to Wikipedia for good information on it. That article would really deserve FA status. The specific notability of the article, in my opinion, is a totally invalid argument. We want people to bring every article to FA status, not just the exciting ones. Some people like video games, and I don't think it's remotely sensible to oppose an article just because you think that person's time could be better spent writing an article about who knows what else. Anyway, I'm off to play a video game and enjoy myself. JHMM13 04:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - anything else, then? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 21:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very nice. 6 fair use images in an FA article doesn't usually sit well with me, but they are used here well, so I won't complain. However (and I know this is super fine tooth comb), but you might consider changing "Screenshot of a Halo 2 game in progress." to "Screenshot of a Halo 2 multiplayer game in progress." It was a little misleading until I really looked at the picture, since you labeled the other multiplayer picture as one.--Clyde (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great overall article, images are source and it's extremely well referenced. -凶 02:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Halo 2 may just be a video game, but it is an incredibly notable one at that, nice work FA class all the way to bad the article about pocket lint is not this good. Max 08:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't see any of the opposing rationale to bear much weight. "I don't like video games" is not a very standing argument, and no printed sources...for goodness sake, you don't read Halo 2, you play it. bibliomaniac15 00:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the bungie links are still broken. There is no way to verify the content that is sourced with these links. Please fix them. --- RockMFR 01:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
bugger... stupid bungie web guys went back on their word... hopefully by the end of this weekend I'll have time to convert all these. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article did a phenomonal job of explaining this game to a total moron (a.k.a. me) who had never played it before. I think that this article is definately good enough for featured article status.J.delanoy 01:49, 16 April 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Halo_2&oldid=1138535200"