Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Joelr31 15:34, 23 March 2009 [1].

Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Abraham Lure, WP Video games

This article was promoted in late 2006, and it's not up to current FA standards. Most obviously, its incredibly short "Development" section (as noted by the expansion tag) is a failure of criterion 1(b). The article could use an overall copyedit and a longer lead as well. Fair use rationales for the two gameplay images should probably also be beefed up. --Torsodog^Talk 14:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; the development is almost nonexistent, the images have no unique rationale, and the characters section doesn't assert notability, just truthfulness. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was beginning to wonder when this would come up. Having made a few very minor edits to the article (although that was a while ago), I also concur with the assessment of Torsodog, and can't say much more. I also checked Abraham Lure's contributions, and they don't seem to have edited since February 2007. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 12:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose, comprehensiveness, and images. Joelito (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: I really enjoyed this game when it came out, but the article is definitely not up to Featured status... I was surprised when I saw it was an FA. The images look fine for now... they've now been nominated twice for speedy deletion, but it shouldn't take much work to make them valid, so deletion seems unnecessary; just expand the FUR a little with some more customized comments (I've already expanded them a little bit by clarifying what article they are considered fair use in). I haven't really looked at the prose (haven't read the whole article), but comprehensiveness is definitely lacking... the short development and reception sections show that. That being said, I think that this could make a decent GA with a little work. -Drilnoth (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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