Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2014

Kept status

Removed status

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 User:Nikkimaria 14:45, 7 January 2014 [1].

Age of Mythology

Review commentary

Notified: Giggy, Andonic, Video games, Microsoft

I am nominating this featured article for review because of its issue of failing to have reliable sources in the article. Mobygames, for example, has been deemed unreliable and other references used (ToTheGame, Age of Mythology Heaven) are highly questionable. Another issue the article has is its prose as sentences like "Multiplayer is a highly popular aspect of Age of Mythology. Most multiplayer games are played through Ensemble Studios Online (ESO), or via a direct LAN or IP connection." just looks poorly written. GamerPro64 17:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Article was promoted 6 years ago when guidelines were different. It now has faulty sourcing, and weak prose. The content is broken up too much by sections which have only a couple sentences in them. As such, I would say it needs a rewrite/restructuring of content. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blake, while its good to see a bit of activity, it would have been better to have said that when this nomination went into the FARC stage. GamerPro64 19:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess I don't quite understand the process. You discuss whether or not to to bring it to voting for removal? Is that just another barrier to prevent unwanted/unfair removals or something? Or do we first have to try to fix the article before delisting it so the overall quality still goes up whether it is still featured or not? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Each stage in FAR takes 2-3 weeks. So when this nomination is 2-3 weeks old, it then goes to the FARC section where it gets voted on whether it keeps its status or not. This step currently happening right now is where people discuss the article and hopefully progress is made to obtain improvement. GamerPro64 20:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't feel very good about this one, especially since Giggy isn't around to fix it. The sourcing is indeed sub-par. I just did a basic library search for reliable sources and didn't find much of promise. --Laser brain (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: Hi. I had a very quick glance at the article, and I see spots of clunky prose that are not even acceptable for GA articles. For instance, screenshot caption reads:
In this screenshot, an Egyptian town under attack by the Norse, defending itself using the meteor god power.

This is neither a fragment nor a sentence. As another example, the "Campaign" section (which should be titled "Plot"), says

Arkantos builds a wonder to Zeus and gains his blessing, giving him awesome power and enabling him to confront Gargarensis and the Living Statue at the temple of Poseidon.

First, who is giving "awesome power" to whom? This text suggests Arkantos is giving to Zeus, whereas the game suggests otherwise. Second, "awesome" is child language; it means "cool" or "sporting". "Tremendous power" is what was intended. Two paragraphs earlier:

Ajax and Arkantos find Odysseus's wrecked ship, who has been cursed by Circe...

Why the word "who" is used for a ship? "Which" should be used. See other screenshot captions and the rest of the prose too.

Last but not least, I really need a source for the assertion that Skult was Loki himself. Overall, I am afraid this article needs work. Lots of it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, guys. Just reporting an update: I am having an eye on the article and this page ever since the discussion started and I am not seeing any activity involving an attempt to fix the problems. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Though I don't really see why you had to do that. GamerPro64 03:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is how things works in FAC/FAR: Someone nominates an article. People review that article and nitpick the hell out of the nominator. Nominator resolves them all. Article gets to have an FA badge and FA status and nominator becomes a wikihero. I myself did an FA.

But... you feel free to do as you see fit. If you needed help, just shout. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

The featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - None of the issues that I raised were fixed so I have to vote to delist this. GamerPro64 05:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Issues look unlikely to be addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 12:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Refs and prose not at FA quality nor are they about to be any time soon. czar ♔ 15:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - At best, this article could meet the criteria for GA-class, but I see little in the lieu of a Featured Article in most every criteria and no serious incentive to even remedy these issues. Therefore, I must ruefully recommend that this article be downgraded to B-class. DARTHBOTTO_talk•cont 00:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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