Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.
The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine[edit]
I re-wrote and cited this article in a brief spurt a few months ago, submitted it for GA and received a thorough review that worked over some fiddly minutiae and stylistic infelicities. It's been idling through the relevant Wikiproject's Peer Review for the past month or so now, with decidedly less helpful results. I believe this article fully conforms to all Featured Article Criteria at this time. Nevertheless, I've probably missed something, and will be glad to take any actionable criticisms or comments regarding anything in the article. It's a small, unimportant topic, but there's no reason we shouldn't have good articles on everything. Much thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I agree that this article is well-written and covers the various available aspects of the subject. (I'm actually playing Oblivion as I type; I just took a break.) But I think the short length of time it's been around, the limited scope of the product, and the lack of tremendous social impact make it hard to create a comprehensive article at this time. – Scartol • Tok 14:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is lacking? I do not believe that any sort of "social impact" is necessary for a subject to be considered eligible for Featured Article candidacy, nor is the limited scope of the product any bar to the same. I doubt this subject will ever receive more coverage than it has at present: "at this time" is misdirected. It does not matter: "Comprehensive", in the Featured Article Criteria, means only that the article "does not neglect major facts and details" of its subject; it cannot be said that "comprehensive" necessitates facts and details that have not yet been created for the subject, nor facts and details that do not exist for the subject. This article is comprehensive, and the fact that it does not cover facts and details that have not yet been conjured for its subject means nothing as regards Featured Article candidacy. This article was created under WP:SIZE recommendations for the size of the parent article, and its scope is limited as such. Thank you for your commentary, Scartol, but I do not believe that anything you say has grounding in any guideline or policy I know of. As it stands, this Oppose is not actionable. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it, a comprehensive article addresses the various aspects of its subject, including a broader social impact. (This is often done through "Legacy" sections and such.) This sort of thing is really only possible after some time has passed and reliable sources report on that impact. (The reader needs to get a sense of how the subject has affected the world.)
- What is lacking? I do not believe that any sort of "social impact" is necessary for a subject to be considered eligible for Featured Article candidacy, nor is the limited scope of the product any bar to the same. I doubt this subject will ever receive more coverage than it has at present: "at this time" is misdirected. It does not matter: "Comprehensive", in the Featured Article Criteria, means only that the article "does not neglect major facts and details" of its subject; it cannot be said that "comprehensive" necessitates facts and details that have not yet been created for the subject, nor facts and details that do not exist for the subject. This article is comprehensive, and the fact that it does not cover facts and details that have not yet been conjured for its subject means nothing as regards Featured Article candidacy. This article was created under WP:SIZE recommendations for the size of the parent article, and its scope is limited as such. Thank you for your commentary, Scartol, but I do not believe that anything you say has grounding in any guideline or policy I know of. As it stands, this Oppose is not actionable. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In some cases an article's subject has had a profound impact in a short period of time. The Wii, for example, has only been on the US market for a year, but its innovative gameplay possibilities have sent some shockwaves through the industry. That Featured Article, then, goes through the various innovations and implications in terms of its demographics, etc. Minor video game add-ons, meanwhile, aren't likely to have the same impact, so writing comprehensively about them is much more difficult.
- If the article contains all of the available information, then maybe there just isn't enough out there yet to make it an FA. (I had a similar experience with the 1998 Puerto Rican general strike. I simply can't make it a GA, because the information isn't available. Sucks for me, but that's the way it is.) – Scartol • Tok 19:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think something like that depends on the subject matter. The Wii's article would have to cover the impact it has had in the industry, because it has had an impact in the industry; this article would not, because it had none and will have none. One could imagine an eventual history titled Labour Movements in Puerto Rico: 1898–2005 covering such an impact, because we'd assume that such a large strike would have some grander relevance—we'd just have to wait for a Marxist to drop in and write it up. That isn't the case for the subject of this article: we aren't going to see any grand impact, any good sources, ever.
- That does not mean, however, that we can't write an article on the subject. What it means is that we're going to be limited in our scope: this isn't relevant in terms of the industry, it's relevant in terms of Bethesda's corporate aims, its relations with its consumers, its relevant in terms of modern video-gaming content release policies. That is what the sources cover, and that is what I write up. I talk about exclusivity, I talk about tensions between general expansion packs and minor content releases, and I conclude the article with one reviewer's caution: "if consumers were to fully accept individually priced content releases, Bethesda might just begin charging for all its quests"; that comprehends all significant impact the pack will ever have. That is the substance of Knights of the Nine's legacy, and that is all the impact you are ever going to see. I stand by my position that discussion of that legacy is sufficient for "comprehensiveness". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidenote: The discussion of the Wii's impact in its article actually seems quite weak. Indeed, the Wii did force others to reconsider their positions, it moved Nintendo into a very favorable market position, and it has opened a broad field for video game designers—but the article barely talks about those things at all. That's pretty bad. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article contains all of the available information, then maybe there just isn't enough out there yet to make it an FA. (I had a similar experience with the 1998 Puerto Rican general strike. I simply can't make it a GA, because the information isn't available. Sucks for me, but that's the way it is.) – Scartol • Tok 19:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per Scartol. This article is not comprehensive. --Kaypoh (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What is lacking? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not responded, either here or on your talk page, so I will go ahead and assume this comment is not actionable. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ConditionalSupport - 1. Gameplay needs to summarise Oblivion's gameplay, besides saying that "litle was changed". 2. There are no images in the article. User:Krator (t c) 16:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've strengthened the Gameplay section with some skill-building details &c and a cite to the GSpot review of the original game. Anything specific still lacking? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still a bit light. See Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance on how I see such things - you do not have to copy that style, but it is about the amount of information I think is required for "comprehensive". Also, I just noticed that there are no images! Please add some. User:Krator (t c) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've weighted it a bit more: there were really no changes to the gameplay at all. I'll work on getting some images. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have obtained an image. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still a bit light. See Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance on how I see such things - you do not have to copy that style, but it is about the amount of information I think is required for "comprehensive". Also, I just noticed that there are no images! Please add some. User:Krator (t c) 17:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I've strengthened the Gameplay section with some skill-building details &c and a cite to the GSpot review of the original game. Anything specific still lacking? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think the current image even does anything. A detailed description of the role and/or appearance of the knights is never presented in the text, making me think that there is not enough significant commentary to justify the use of the image. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Nothing is spoken of "significant commentary", only of "understanding"; if that understanding could be conveyed through the text, there would be no need for the image. It is detrimental to the understanding of the reader not to have any image of what the basic structure of the interface, of the game-world, and the main characters in the game look like. The image features (1) the game world, in clarity' (2) a Knight, the titular character of the game, and the key actors in the second paragraph of the plot: "Along the way, further characters join the player's quest, re-creating the Knights of the Nine, a faction once pledged to defend the relics, whose former members had since passed on.[12] The relics united, and the Knights reborn, the player sets off to fight Umaril in his temple at Garlas Malatar. The Knights fight and defeat Umaril's minions, and the player slays the mortal body of Umaril. The player then follows Umaril into the spirit realm, and destroys Umaril's soul. Returning to the land of the living, the player is greeted with the grateful cheers of the Knights, praising the gods for their grace.[13]"; and (3) the relics of the Crusaders, the central objects in the game, one of the key additions of "items" noted by reviewers in the progress from the original to the expansion. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment withdrawn. Thank you for the long explanation. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit long-winded, yes. Apologies and thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment withdrawn. Thank you for the long explanation. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Nothing is spoken of "significant commentary", only of "understanding"; if that understanding could be conveyed through the text, there would be no need for the image. It is detrimental to the understanding of the reader not to have any image of what the basic structure of the interface, of the game-world, and the main characters in the game look like. The image features (1) the game world, in clarity' (2) a Knight, the titular character of the game, and the key actors in the second paragraph of the plot: "Along the way, further characters join the player's quest, re-creating the Knights of the Nine, a faction once pledged to defend the relics, whose former members had since passed on.[12] The relics united, and the Knights reborn, the player sets off to fight Umaril in his temple at Garlas Malatar. The Knights fight and defeat Umaril's minions, and the player slays the mortal body of Umaril. The player then follows Umaril into the spirit realm, and destroys Umaril's soul. Returning to the land of the living, the player is greeted with the grateful cheers of the Knights, praising the gods for their grace.[13]"; and (3) the relics of the Crusaders, the central objects in the game, one of the key additions of "items" noted by reviewers in the progress from the original to the expansion. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:50, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Seems short. Yes, I know, it's not very constructive - hence I am not opposing, but compared to most other computer games articles this is short. Expansion would not hurt.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comment, Piotrus, but I believe that the article as it stands is appropriately sized. I have checked over other Video Game FAs, but it seems as though, where they had the same number of sources, but were longer, it was because they had more in-universe content, more detailed explanations of the plot, discussion of "Characters", "Setting", or of the intricate details of "Gameplay". I aim for concision and brevity in my description of in-universe material, writing only as much as is necessary to describe the essence of the game. I aimed to structure the article around what was most relevant to the reader, and what was covered in the reliable sources; pricing, publication, release dates and cross-console availability. I did not wish to stray beyond the reliable sources with the aim of inflating the size of the article, and so I have kept it at its current, reasonably-sized, level. There is a limited subject matter to be considered here; it is a single expansion, not a full game, and so the description should, of necessity, be briefer. I believe comprehensiveness is achieved in few words when writing on the smallest of topics; I would not wish to stray into unnecessary detail.
- Now, I had considered bunching all the expansions together to make a single "Expansions to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" article, but that idea has the distinct limitation of not being a single, coherent topic. The topic "Knights" is addressed in a number of articles; the topic "Expansions to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" is addressed in none. It would be an artificial molding of the sources to meet an arbitrary feel for size. I think, overall, that I have kept on with what the sources state, with what guideline recommends, and do not think that any expansion is necessary or beneficial. Small FAs exist, where their topic recommends it. Again, Piotrus, thank you for bringing this up. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Length is not a Featured Article Criteria, comprehensiveness is, and the article appears to be so. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 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.