Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fallout 3/archive1
- 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 Karanacs 17:07, 6 September 2011 [1].
Fallout 3[edit]
Fallout 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured article because... I recently helped to make this article become a Good Article, and I think it has potential to become a Featured Article, and a lot of articles get nominated for Featured Article soon after becoming a Good Article. I believe it meets all of the featured article criteria and am willing to make any suggested improvements resulting from the review. I am strongly committed to bringing this article to FA status.SCB '92 (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FN 16: formatting
- Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using base URLs or website names or just publishers, and if the first how these are formatted
- Be consistent in what is italicized
- Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
- Web citations must consistently include publishers
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? this? this? this? this? etc. Sources must be high-quality and reliable for FA-level articles. Also check use of self-published sources per WP:SPS
- Print sources need page numbers, as do multi-page online sources
Oppose unless/until sourcing issues are resolved. Additionally, on a quick scan of the text I see some potentially inaccessible content for non-specialist readers (for example, what is a Perk? A G.O.A.T.?), and weak FURs on File:Fallout3_special.jpg and File:Fallout_3_V.A.T.S._Screen.PNG. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take care of the sourcing issues-SCB '92 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think the 1a criteria is quite satisfied yet. For a particular example, see the paragraph that begins "Along with the health." Likewise, the long sentence that begins "Dogmeat can be killed". Why is it assuming the reader knows about factions before they have been introduced? Where are they introduced? Several of the suggestions from the last PR haven't been implemented. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources I have a problem with some sources:
- TechTree.com, I see no indication that the source is reliable. Consider using GamingBlend.com instead, as it has many of the same facts and appears reliable.
- psu.com, I see no indication that the source is reliable. Consider using smh.com.au instead. Also, the specific date of August 7, 2008, is not found in the source (psu.com). I was able to find the date at classification.gov.au, so consider adding this as a source too. I see you have an archived version as a ref already, so you might want to update it with the current, working site's version.
- GalbadiaX is not a reliable source. Consider using GameSpot's article instead, as it has much the same info.
Done-SCB '92 (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You also seem to have ignored sources like The New York Times, USA Today, FOX News, Entertainment Weekly, The Telegraph, and PC World magazine, and focused entirely on game-only media outlets. I think this is perhaps to the detriment of the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.