Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive5

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 not promoted by GrahamColm 22:58, 15 February 2012 [1].

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion[edit]

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): SCB '92 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...I've done so much work on it in the past 4 months to make sure it meets the criteria this time-SCB '92 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. The toolbox gives the wrong edit count; this is the article history. - Dank (push to talk) 21:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 7: can this be split? That's a huge page range for verification pursposes
    • It's all for the system requirements
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This? This?
    • They're notable-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. I've never heard of any of them, and I spend even more time with video games than I do with Wikipedia (as if that were possible). That however, is a poor argument. A stronger argument is that none of those sites are built into the video game reviews template, and none have their own articles. It shouldn't be hard to find replacements from more notable sites, considering that this game was heavily, heavily covered. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, even if they are notable that doesn't matter - notability does not equal reliability. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 23: formatting
  • BethBlog or Beth Blog? Check for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, it was actually Bethesda Blog-SCB '92 (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review - Nothing has changed since my last image review, so this is still good.
  • Comments A few things I'd change:
    • "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, with the remainder termed minor." - this statement, while correct as is, should specify that there is a difference between major and minor skills, or failing that, be removed from the lead. Consider "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, which improve quickly, with the remainder termed minor." or something else along those lines.
    • "praised for its impressive graphics at the time" in the lead - I would consider removing "at the time", as it's automatically implied. We don't dis on Halo 1 because Halo 3 had better graphics.
    • "Jauffre tells the player that the only way to close the gates permanently is to find someone of the royal bloodline to retake the throne and relight the Dragonfires in the Imperial City." - it needs to me mentioned that the Amulet of Kings is used to light the Dragonfires, thus implicitly informing readers unfamiliar with the game that the amulet is more than a MacGuffin.
    • Same section (generally) as the above quote, consider mentioning that Jauffre is the grand master of the Blades.
    • "Oblivion features dynamic weather and time, shifting between snow, rain, fog, and sunny and overcast skies, along with the darkening red sky near Oblivion portals." - the second half of the quote, after 'skies' is awkward, mostly because the way it is worded, it assumes that people would have already know about that feature.
    • "Wherever this was not possible, the screen displays a message stating "You cannot go that way, turn back". However, the team still built in viewable landscape several miles in." - the second half of the quote, starting with 'However' is awkwardly worded. Consider replacing "in" with "past the point in which the character can no longer proceed", or something less wordy than that but which conveys the same information.
    • "Soule had worked with Bethesda and Todd Howard back during the creation of Morrowind,..." - this sounds unprofessional. Consider removing the word "back"; I think that's all that's needed as the article has previously established that Morrowind came right before this game in the TES chronology.
    • "he soundtrack was generally positively received, with GSoundtracks awarding it 4/5 stars, calling it a "conventional but atmospheric fantasy score",[64] and Square Enix Music a 6/10, criticizing its "monotonous action tracks"." - Here we have a positive review and a mediocre review connected by an 'and'. I don't feel that structure works well. Consider using a 'however' or 'but' type connector (which will necessitate a bit of tweaking to at least the second sentence.
    • Most of the stuff in the "Further Reading" is either a) already entirely covered by the article, b) rendered incorrect by the article, or c) a boring stub written by someone know one's ever heard of about something no one really cares about. My recommendations: remove the 3rd, 7th, and 8th items on the list. The third is behind a freewall, and isn't worth getting an account for, and the 7th and 8th are kinda useless. Also, consider axing the whole section.
    • That's it. In the future, please remember that the audience hasn't necessarily played the game you're writing about, you can't make leaps of inferrance that assume that they know the game. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media comments: I think these issues need addressing

  • 5 non-free media is a lot to me (File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg seems like it offers least to the article).
  • I think resizing them smaller would be more prudent for fair-use.
    • done-SCB '92 (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • By resize, I meant reduce the size of the uploaded files, rather than the displayed size in the article (Personally, I rarely adjust the size in articles because the default works best). I think 460×345 is a little too big for fair use. If you don't have the software to do this, you can tag the image with {{Non-free reduce|type=screen}} for a bot to take care of it in a week or so. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Put them back to the size they were before please. There are numerous reasons to have them in the standard thumbnail size (primarily because at the smaller size, you can see so little that the images are essentially useless). If you happen to be talking about the dimensions of the images themselves, as the person that did the resizings, I can tell you that they are the right size; they're under the limit by 43,100 pixels. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Undone; so I guess guyinblack's comment "I think resizing them smaller would be more prudent for fair-use" is contradicted by Sven Manguard?-SCB '92 (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very technical debate over file sizes and other related file issues. Long story short, the horse armor image and the sound file were removed, and both media reviewers are grudgingly content with the comprimise.
Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, we are in disagreement over the dimensions of the file. But in agreement on the display size within the article.
              The general limit I'm assuming is .1 megapixel, which is 100,000 pixels. But 460×345 is over that by 58,700 pixels. Both can be reduced further without significant loss of quality and identification. The image with the menu has a stronger argument for a larger size because of the text, but even then the text can be listed in the description of the file page like File:MarbleMadness-diagrams.jpg. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
              • The limit is 160,000 pixels, what you would get if you had a 400x400 square image. It's done by pixels, however, because as this image illustrates, not all files are square. If you don't believe me, use the reduce template. DASHBot will remove the template without resizing the image, because it's already of an appropriate size, (i.e. under 160,000 pixels.
                • Then we have conflicting information. I get mine from Wikipedia:Non-free content#Image resolution. Where did you get yours from?
                  Also, DASHBot was approved for smaller resizing. I'm not sure when or why that has changed? (Guyinblack25 talk 11:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
                  • I'm not sure when it was changed, or where, but I've been doing file work on a nearly daily basis, and in that year it's always been 160,000 pixels. The 160,000 pixel guideline is the one stated at at the top of the resize category, and is the number that the manual tool used before DASHBot came into service. I've done hundreds of resizes, on one's ever brought up 400x400 as being too large. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Given the circumstances, I won't pursue this further. I still recommend reduction though. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • File:Standard inventory interface, Oblivion 2006-12-27.jpg needs an updated description to reflect the resize. Sven Manguard Wha?
  • File:Reign of the Septims.ogg is a 30 second sample of a two minute song. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples, the sample should be 10% of the length with a maximum of 30 seconds. So this one should be around 11 seconds. The FUR is very sparse for FA too.
    • Um... I do not... really know... what/how to do...-SCB '92 (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Typically, the file needs to be shortened in a audio/video program. If you don't have access to this or know another editor that does, you can tag the file with {{Non-free reduce|type=audio}} and someone (or a bot) will come along to take care of it. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
        • (edit conflict) Yes, that is in fact what the MoS says, however this is a textbook case of 'when to throw the MoS out the window'. A 10 second sample is useless, and there is no good reason to cling to the 10% rule when it makes the file so short as to remove any value from it. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • DAHSBot cannot resize non-image files. There are only a small number of people that handle the sound file reductions, and I happen to be one of them, however for the reasons I discussed above, I don't intend on doing it for this case. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • So what should be done then? leave it as it is or remove the audio sample altogether?-SCB '92 (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I recommend shortening the file or removal, but Sven and I are still discussing how guidelines apply.
                File:Kingdom Hearts - Dearly Beloved.ogg is 7 seconds and gets the job done. I think the portion from 14 to 25 seconds is a good sample (a sample by definition provides a limited amount). Applying guidelines stringently is part of the FAC process to identify Wikipedia's best. Unfortunately, it is especially difficult when dealing with non-free media. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
                • I certainly would be opposed to removal. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples wasn't written by file workers or NFCC experts, as far as I can tell. It's an irrational restriction, one that's not used by any other website (iTunes has a 1:30 second preview for a 4:00 song, and I've never seen a preview less than 30 seconds). Ultimately, the 10% restriction, which is in a guideline, is more restrictive than the NFCC, which is policy. In cases where guidelines hamper the encyclopedia, IAR comes in. I feel that this is one such case. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • What iTunes does with its previews is between itself and the copyright owners of the music. The site is trying to sell music, while Wikipedia is trying to educate via a free encyclopedia. To that end, Wikipedia needs to be restrictive in its use of non-free content.
                    To try to move this forward, what do you believe is gained from the 30 sec clip as opposed to the 11 sec one I suggested, and how does that benefit the reader? (Guyinblack25 talk 11:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
                    • I suppose then that it's a matter of opinion. I don't think you can get an understanding of a piece of music in ten seconds. You have the MoS on your side. I tend to view the MoS's section on files (which is outdated and was not written by people who actually work in files) as good for little more than kindling, and have already invoked IAR in this case. There is no way to proceed unless one of us drops the issue, an RfC is held, or an FA delegate make a decision him or herself tell us to cut it out. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Sven- Having worked in files myself, I have to say that the MOS is not impossible to work within. The key to working within the guideline is picking media that offers the most bang for the buck. Unfortunately, most media upload for video game articles is rather old was probably selected arbitrarily.
                        That being said, it might be worth switching out the current file with something that is selected to provide the most information, rather than working with something that is not the most representative piece. Otherwise, a rationale should be provided as to why a 30 second sample is needed. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • Not a deal breaker, but using {{Non-free use rationale}} would nice. It's more professional looking than a simple bulleted list.

(Guyinblack25 talk 17:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

No offense, but I've already done a media review for this article, twice actually. I've never seen an article get two media reviews in one nomination before. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. But the prose and citations get multiple reviews from different editors, why not media? The large number of non-free media made me take a closer look. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Five is nothing compared to some of the things I've seen. We have a few articles with non-free images in the triple digits. Yes, it's sad, but true. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward support—I reviewed this article during the PR and I believe that most of my concerns were addressed. It seems to be in good shape overall, and it stands up fairly well to a direct comparison with the The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind article. However, there are a few elements of the latter that should perhaps be covered in the former. For example, the Morrowind article describes how skills are improved, whereas Oblivion does not. The primary editor may want to compare the two and see how the Oblivion article may be improved. Otherwise, I think this article is FA worthy. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the GameBanshee and GamesFirst articles are transcripts of an interview; I think I saw somewhere in Wikipedia (might be a GAR) where a YouTube video (unreliable source) was used as a reference and it was okay because it was a recording of an interview-SCB '92 (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article is pretty good, but I have a gripe with the reviews box in the Reception section. I assume someone mentioned this before in a previous nomination. It's a really big box. I support the usage of the template when used sparingly, when scores are only included when mentioned in the text, etc. but this box is really wide. For people with smaller screens than your typical 21", it's gonna take up half the article width (which it does for me; even though I have a large screen, I shrink the article width to a readable size). I assume that the three system scores for GameSpot are on one line so that the box isn't too long, but if the Awards were removed, then it would be a more manageable size. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So just to be clear, do you want the reviews box changed to a different template, eg the VG Reviews one?-SCB '92 (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't remove the awards, all of the award winning articles I've seen have had the lists of awards. You can, however, add the collapse functionality (where the word "[hide]" appears) to the template, which I see as a good compromise between retaining the information and making the article as readable as possible. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw GameBanshee being used twice as a reference in the BioShock article, which is an FA; why shouldn't this article use it as a reference?-SCB '92 (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best argument to use a reference. Standards were different, doesn't look like much of a source check was done, etc. The interview does look really useful, though. And if it's owned by UGO, then that's a plus... Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think GameBanshee should be kept as a source, along with GamesFirst, as the articles are exclusive interviews with Bethesda Softworks' producer Gavin Carter; and also, do you currently support or oppose the article to become an FA-SCB '92 (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a reasonable source to use, I guess, but WP:RS is not really my field, especially here at FAC. And you can't really pressure me to vote one way or the other; I'll do so if and when I do a thorough review. Others will do so when they feel like they're satisfied with their assessment of the article. Gary King (talk · scripts) 02:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: So I think the references to GameBanshee, Game Chronicles and GamesFirst should stay because they are exclusive interviews with Gavin Carter; there's an argument about the audio sample—though I think it's easier to remove it altogether—and there's also an argument about the size of the uploaded images; I'm also trying to find a source to replace TweakGuides.com-SCB '92 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of the collapsed discussion above.
Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't really need to post updates, although I don't see how it could hurt either. As for the images and the sound, at this point, you don't have to do anything. On your end, all the files are fine, and it won't effect this article's passing or not passing. When Guyinblack25 and I settle our disagreement, any changes that would me made would be made directly to the file(s), and wouldn't involve editing the article itself. Don't lose sleep over this, and don't let this distract you from any other concerns that might get raised. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that; I'm just wondering where to go from here, as I have basically addressed all of the issues discussed so far; I'm just waiting for more comments for suggestions to improve this article further, if needed, otherwise a consensus in its current state-SCB '92 (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sven, I'm sorry but that is not the case. FAC is a package deal that covers the files used in the article (criteria 3 at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria). Nominators must be prepared to address concerns brought up either by defending the decision, correcting it themselves, or getting someone else to correct it.
While there are plenty of other articles with more than 5 non-free media, four such files in a video game article at FAC is beyond the norm and sufficient reason should be given for inclusion. I hate to be the bad guy here, but something needs to be done to address my media concerns. Otherwise, I will have little choice but to oppose the article. Whether my concern has any merit will then be up to FAC delegate.
That being said, I will help with shortening the audio file if that is the route you want to take. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Well Sven must be too busy to reply, but it'll be good if you can help shorten the audio file so to hear the portion from 14 to 25 seconds-SCB '92 (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't too busy, I just didn't see the message from the 21st come across my watchlist. As for my comment about SCB not having to worry about anything I was saying that you and I would work something out and make any needed changes. Now I don't consider you enforcing your opinion with the threat of an oppose vote to be you being the bad guy, but I do think that making any further reductions will harm the article, and therefore I will make a counter threat. You'll oppose if reductions aren't made, and I'll oppose if reductions are made. We're stuck again. Shall we ask SandyGeorgia to settle this? Sven Manguard Wha? 13:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sven- Just to clarify, that was not a threat. I'm simply doing my due diligence as a reviewer. Regardless, our discussion appeared to reach an impasse, and no conclusion would not help the article pass the nomination.
If SCB would like the file reduced, you are more than welcome to oppose based on reduced media quality. However, I must say that I would not be worried about such opposition at FAC of mine because media are not required for an FA and non-free media should adhere to non-free content guidelines.
If you'd like to get Sandy's input, you are also welcome to do so. But I believe that she will ask you the same questions I asked:
  • Why does the clip need to be 30 seconds?
  • What does the reader gain from the 30 second clip?
If neither you or SCB can provide an answer, then I think that one of the following actions should be taken:
  • Reduce the length of the clip
  • Replace the clip with another one from a longer song that is as (or more) representative of the game's music
  • Remove the media from the article
I will help reduce the file length if that is the route chosen. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Screw it, let's just remove the piece. I fumbled around with trying to reduce it before, and I can get no 10 second clip that's representative of the piece. I'd rather have no file than a file that's misrepresentative of the whole. As for why it's needed, I think it gives the reader a sense of the music of the game. Mind you, it's the music of the opening scene, not the background music for the real gameplay, so one the one hand it's an iconic scene, but on the other hand, its EV isn't especially high. I dislike doing this, because I do believe that the article is better off with the file, but we might as well get rid of it, if you're not going to budge on the issue. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a short term solution, removal sounds like a good idea. But if there is a more representative piece, then I think it should be pursued. If not now, then sometime in the future. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I also thought removing it would be a good idea; so it is decided to remove the audio file, so I'll remove it; I just need to wait for more users to review this article and discuss it-SCB '92 (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews generally start to come in when the nomination hits the "Older nominations" section. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - contingent on no more file related changes being made. My prose concerns have been addressed. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Struck support post closure due to concerns from Laser brain
  • Support Comments - reading through now and will make straightforward changes as I go. Will jot queries below as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...was released in September 2007 for Windows PCs, the Xbox 360, and the PlayStation 3, PCs is plural yet next two are singular. Best to keep all singular (unless I am missing something?)
...The game had shipped 1.7 million copies by April 2006, and sold over three million copies by January 2007 _ I think I'd change the "three" to a "3" to conform with previous number.

Overall, in pretty good shape prose and comprehensiveness-wise. Very nearly over the line. Not seeing any deal-breakers prose-wise though have a seanking suspicion some more massaging of prose would be good. I'll scour it again to see if I can see anything else actionable and will support if I don't Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support A good read. I especially enjoyed the development section and the balanced views in the reception section. I made a few edits but other than that I think the article meets the Featured Article criteria. Tango16 (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'll wait to support/oppose, as I'm still reading though the article. In the meantime, here are issues that stood out to me. There are some prose issues that I think are problematic.

  • Infobox
    • I recommend alphabetizing the platforms.
    • There seems to be a lot of detail in here for something that is suppose to summarize. I think the following info should be removed.
      • First person and third person views (The documentation at Template:Infobox video game states that such info is not intended to be here).
      • DVD-DL adds little here and is better explained in the development section. The layman is largely ignorant to the difference between single and dual layer DVDs.
  • Lead
    • Some sentences look almost copy and pasted from content in the article. I recommend using more of a summary style while mixing in appropriate synonyms.
    • The sentences is awkward: "A PlayStation 3 (PS3) release was shipped..." I would switch out "release" with "version" or something similar. "Release" and "shipped" sound redundant. Also, I don't believe "was" is needed.
    • The fourth sentence in the second paragraph is long and the comma usage can create confusion. I recommend either splitting it up or mixing in different punctuation like parenthesis or a semicolon.
    • The second to last sentence of the fourth paragraph has a similar problem.
    • I don't think the layman will understand what "fully voiced dialog" means. Perhaps a different wording?
  • Gameplay
    • This section (mostly the second paragraph) seems to go into more detail than is necessary and borders on game guide content. I suggest trimming and summarizing more.
    • This section switches between "players" and "player". I think that one should be used for consistency's sake. Also, I see "their" used with the singular "player", which I believe is frowned upon. Don't know for certain though.
    • What does "they" refer to in this sentence "Each time the player improves their major skills by a total of ten points, they level up", the player or the skills?
  • Plot
    • There were a few instances of "their" used as singular pronoun. See above points.
  • Development
    • I think the first paragraph would flow better if the third and fourth sentence started the paragraph.

I'll post more comments once I get further through the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 05:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Here are more comments. I've also made some copy edits to fix some minor issues that stood out to me.
  • Game world
    • I would explain the user interface some in the screenshot.
    • I think that this section requires some technical knowledge to full understand it, and I think some context and rewording would benefit the layman. Some examples are below; more are in the article though.
      • This phrase may need some context: "a shift of graphical focus from water to flora".
      • I'd wikilink Lich and Skeleton (undead).
      • Maybe wikilink view distance to Draw distance.
      • This phrase doesn't make sense: "Wilderness quests ... were added to fill surplus space." Perhaps "Wilderness that players can perform quests in"?
  • Additional content
    • The last paragraph get repetitive with all the release dates. I recommend write some of the sentences with different structures or see if you can summarize/consolidate the information.
  • Reception
    • The review scores inconsistently specify which platform version was reviewed. I recommend using {{Video game multiple console reviews}} to make this more clear.
      I'd rather not, because a couple of the publications used (PC Gamer, Official Xbox Magazine) makes it obvious what platform they are giving scores two, and other publications have given the same score for all the platforms (1UP.com gave all A's, GameSpy gave all 4/5 stars), and it's rather annoying to change the template a second time, especially with the fact that the other template doesn't have an awards section;p GameSpot is really the only one at fault here for inconsistency, excluding the aggregators, so I could replace it with another publication-SCB '92 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The template documentation doesn't specify that it can handle awards, but it uses the exact same ones the main template does. See Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time#Reception. IGN has different scores as well. Between that, GameSpot, and the aggregators, I think the information warrants a format that will present it better. I also think that the extra width will prevent the cell bloating in the awards section. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
      Ok, I changed it-SCB '92 (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      But now, the review score and publication of PC Gamer US doesn't display; I'm pretty sure I encoded it correctly (PCGUS_PC)-SCB '92 (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You did. The template was missing the necessary code to process the parameter though. Someone must have added it to the documentation but not the template. I added it to the template and it is working now. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    • This section relies a lot on full quotes. I personally prefer more summary style.
  • Further reading
    • Is there a reason why the font size is smaller here? I've seen it regular size before and assumed that was the standard formatting.
The article making good progress, but I think further copy editing is needed. I'll check back in later to review the sources. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Addressed most of the issues, though you have already addressed some of the issues yourself that you listed-SCB '92 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did some copy editing, but anything I listed above in the second round I did not do like the multiple console review template and rewrites to the "Game world" section. I hope to post comments about the references later today. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Reference comments
  • Inconsistency
    • Magazines like GamesTM and PC Gamer need the publisher listed.
    • Some publishers are wikilinked but others are not. I would remove all but the first instance to avoid overlinking
    • GameSpot UK is still GameSpot. Not a big deal though.
    • "videogamer.com" should be "VideoGamer.com"
    • Staff is used a few times when there is no author listed. It should be in every instance or unused.
  • What makes the following sources reliable?
    • Game Banshee
    • Game Chronicles
    • Game First!
      • Like I wrote back in 20 November 2011: "I think the references to GameBanshee, Game Chronicles and GamesFirst should stay because they are exclusive interviews with Gavin Carter"; even though they're possibly unreliable sources, couldn't this be an exception?-SCB '92 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The VG project no longer considers MobyGames reliable. If another source cannot be found, then the content should be removed.
The article has really improved. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Comments by DarthBotto
  • Infobox
    • Everything seems to be in order; I especially like that this portion of the page doesn't link the Bethesda article twice. It might just be my personal prerogative and inclination, but I would rather not resort to the Development section for the technical aspects, as I prefer to see everything in a uniformed template. But, that might just be my aesthetic choice, as I was opposed to the Infobox Film template that saw to remove the sequels and prequels.
  • Lead
    • I tweaked the introductory sentence, because there was an awkward adjective involved, but other than that, the writing should suffice for a Feature Article.
    • However, I detest the fact that there are no references involved in the lead, which takes away from my belief in the integrity of the page, as it's not tied down completely right there.
      • It is optional to use citations in the lead, and most of the time unnecessary in video game articles, as it summarises the main body of the article, and is mostly used if sentences are not mentioned in the main body of the article, and is better not to have citations in the lead overall (see the lead in the Perfect Dark article)-SCB '92 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gameplay
    • "Character development is a primary element of Oblivion." - This sentence seems to be hanging there and detracts from the quality of the page.
    • Having every element in parentheses seems redundant and may insult the reader.
    • Look to replace the "can's" with "may's"; it improves the sentence flow.
  • Plot
    • "Oblivion is set after the events of The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, though it is not a direct sequel to it or any other game." - How, exactly?
    • Other than that, this is the smoothest section of the article.
  • Development
    • I believe there should be concentration upon making the sentences flow in a cohesive manner, because they seem to be floating, if you will.
    • Game world
      • This section works perfectly for a Featured Article; it gets to the point, includes a decent accompanying image, and is substantial.
    • Additional content
      • Same story as the last one; it works very well.
  • Audio
    • Can this lead be expanded with another paragraph, possibly?
    • Soundtrack
      • This seems fine, but I think an image of the album cover to accompany the track info would do well here.
  • Reception
    • Much like the system requirements and the soundtrack cover, I can only suggest an aesthetic change; Could the star rating be implemented, or is that even applicable in this case?
      • I put in the star rating for GameSpy-SCB '92 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rating change
    • This part seems in order.
Verdict
Support - I've concluded that this article is just about ready. However, I would like my suggestions taken into account and see this article looked at for improvement, as it still is not perfect yet. DarthBotto talk•cont 13:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a spotcheck of this article's sources. Ucucha (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it use {{plainlist}} instead of those <br /> separated lists in the infobox? --Locos epraix 03:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • Five uses of the word "release" in as many sentences in the second paragraph of the lead-- please attempt more variety in the prose, to be more engaging.
  • ... efforts to thwart a fanatical cult know as "The Mythic Dawn" that plans to open the gates to a realm called Oblivion. Why the quotes on "The Mythic Dawn", and the inconsistency in the subsequent "Oblivion". One in quotes, one not.
  • "Seven skills are selected early in the game as major skills, which improve quickly, with the remainder termed minor." I do not know what this means-- skills always improve quickly, for every player? I betcha they wouldn't for me :)
  • Sentence in the lead:

    In order to achieve its goals of designing "cutting-edge graphics" and creating a more believable environment, Bethesda used of an improved Havok physics engine, high dynamic range lighting, procedural content generation tools that allowed developers to quickly create detailed terrains, and the Radiant A.I. system, which allows non-player characters (NPCs) to make choices and engage in behaviors more complex than in past titles.

    1. ?? To achieve cutting-edge graphics and a believable environment ?? (redundant prose)
    2. Bethesda used of an ?? Grammatical error in the lead after months at FAC?
    3. that allowed, which allows ... change in tense?

Article needs a more indepth look at prose. Also, there is collapsed text in several sections, and punctuation review on image captions is needed (see WP:MOS#Captions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed your issues-SCB '92 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - Oh no, this nom made it all the way to the bottom of the page before I got to reviewing it! You should go ask some of the people who commented but didn't support/oppose to come back and !vote. Anyways-

  • In the lead - "thwart a fanatical cult know as"
    • "known" as, how could I not notice that?-SCB '92 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you really need a paragraph break after the first two sentences in the lead?
  • Is the official system reqs box really necessary? It's not used in other video game FAs/GAs. This type of thing is what SandyGeorgia is referring to with "collapsed text". The other collapsed text is the album tracklist, but I think that is too long to be left uncollapsed.
  • You don't need a period on the caption for the screenshot in "game world". There's no verb in the sentence.
  • I moved the album infobox up a bit to prevent whitespace at the end of the section on wide monitors.
  • Music- it's "Square Enix Music Online", not Square Enix Music.
  • "and apply cunning in combat (through the use of a bow or in the way of a sneak attack)" - awkward, maybe "and apply cunning in combat (through the use of a bow or with a sneak attack)"?
  • "The game features improved artificial intelligence" - improved from what? (previous titles in the series)
  • "Content in the dungeons was more densely packed" - than what? and depending on the answer, possibly should be present tense (is)
  • Everything you say about the AI system is true, but I notice there's nothing about how they initially were hyping it up to be much more robust, but ended up cutting down the complexity as they couldn't get it to balance/be fun- ignore this if this was cut sometime during the past 5 FACs or if you couldn't find any sources on this.

Alright, I'm not seeing as many problems in the body as Sandy found in the lead, so clear this up and I'll come back and support. Let's not have this go to a sixth FAC, hmm? --PresN 05:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, changed to Support. The AI thing isn't necessary, it was never a big deal, just wondering is all. --PresN 05:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: spotcheck of sources still pending, and there are numerous unresolved queries about reliability of sources in Nikkimaria's first post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the sources of Gaming Nexus, TweakGuides and GSoundtracks; Firing Squad is reliable, discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midtown Madness; the Square Enix Music source used is a review from a staff member of the site, which is considered reliable accroding to Guyinblack; for Game Chronicles, the "contact us" page shows that it is also a magazine, it states that "Over two million people visit Game Chronicles each month, making it one of the top independent gaming websites in the world, and one of the most trusted sources of PC and video game information on the Internet." it also states "We are 100% independent, and our media coverage is not influenced by advertising or corporate sponsorship", the source used is a transcript of an interview with the executive producer of Oblivion, Todd Howard; the GamesFirst! source used is also a transcript of an interview with Gavin Carter, a producer for Bethesda, and in their "About" pagehere, they state that "GamesFirst! is a longstanding independent online videogame magazine"; GameBanshee is owned by UGO Networks, a reliable source; the rest of the sources used in the article, mainly IGN, GameSpot and GameSpy, are reliable-SCB '92 (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Nitpicks about prose in lead. Sasata (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • the two consecutive sentences in the lead using emdashes as interpolators are not inconspicuous
  • ""The Mythic Dawn"" (lead) or "the Mythic Dawn" (Plot)?
  • suggest links: developer, procedural content generation, fully-voiced, game world
  • "Developers opted for tighter pacing" I'm not quite sure I know what this means. Faster gameplay? Faster movement?
  • "In order to achieve …" -> "To achieve …"
  • "that allowed developers to quickly create detailed terrains, and the Radiant A.I. system, which allowed" how about changing one "allowed" to "enabled" for less repetition?

I have addressed your issues-SCB '92 (talk) 13:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sasata (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This nomination has been here a long time. Can someone please spot check the sources? And, could the nominator confirm that all remaining issues have been addressed, including the questions asked by Nikkimaria about the reliability (not notability) of the sources? Graham Colm (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just discussed the reliability of the sources asked by Nikkimaria, which is just above-SCB '92 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose based on source spot checks. These were literally the first three I checked, and all failed verification. This indicates the need for a comprehensive source review by someone new to the text.

  • Ref 12:
    • Article text: "Bethesda had aimed for a late 2005 publication so that the game could be an Xbox 360 launch title."
    • Source text: Fails verification. Does not mention Bethesda.
      • Changed "Bethesda" to "2K Games"-SCB '92 (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35:
    • Article text: "The expansion was developed, published, and released in North America by Bethesda Softworks; in Europe, the game was co-published with Ubisoft."
    • Source text: Fails verification. Does not mention Europe or Ubisoft.
  • Ref 43:
    • Article text: "The Game of the Year Edition includes the original game as well as the Shivering Isles and Knights of The Nine content packs, but not the other downloadable content."
    • Source text: Fails verification. Does not mention Game of the Year Edition at all; in fact, source seems to be a blog entry about DLC erroneously missing from regional SKUs. --Laser brain (talk) 19:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • removed the sentence and source-SCB '92 (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Andy, I expect to see a speedy response from the nominator, given the long time this has been here. Graham Colm (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got nothing to do with this FAC, but regarding the first ref, it should just be changed to mention Take-Two (or 2K Games I guess) instead of Bethesda. The second ref is certainly a problem. For the third ref, the sentence used to cite [2] but that page is no longer available. The new ref was added here. Gary King (talk · scripts) 21:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]



Yes there is, there are about 6 people who support the article to become an FA-SCB '92 (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just struck my support. Until you can get Laser brain or Nikkimaria to state that all of the sourcing is airtight, this isn't promotable. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:06, 16 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion/archive5&oldid=1088821611"