Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 3: ODST/archive2

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 promoted by Karanacs 17:51, 18 May 2010 [1].

Halo 3: ODST[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article nomination previously archived due to inactivity. I still contend it meets FA criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 16:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Subzerosmokerain

One comment, the final reference on the page is messed up, it looks like someone was bracketing a title and just made some weird title. (Is an actual reviewer needed? I could become the actual reviewer, but I will not show leeway at all to the Halo Franchise.) Also, in the infobox, "Xbox 360" (more the Xbox part) is spelled in all caps, looks pretty unprofessional. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the issues. And any comments are welcome (non-Halo fans are a plus because you can check for comprehension issues that may not be apparent to fans or heavy players.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, All right, then i'm on board. Many times you are referring to ODST and ODSTs, can you please make it obvious when you are referring to the soldiers and when you are referring to the game? (At least in the beginning paragraph refer to it commonly being called ODST instead of Halo: ODST). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence sounds very awkward in the intro paragraph: "Instead of featuring recognizable characters such as the Master Chief from previous games, the developers focused on the ODSTs." either take out the phrase "the master chief" or the phrase "from previous games" just to make it flow better. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"the Chief's damage-absorbing energy shield" Um, when did we start referring to him as "the Chief"? And what is this damage-absorbing energy shield in the first place? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Although the gameplay of ODST bears a strong resemblance to previous Halo titles, the player does not assume the role of the enhanced human supersoldier Master Chief." You should mention Master Chief or "The Master Chief" is the protagonist of teh previous games in this sentence. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the sentence containing "...ODST ships with Halo 3's multiplayer game modes contained on a separate disc...". you really wouldn't use ships in this context. "Ships" sounds likes it is in a future tense, you should speak of it in a present tense. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Think I've addressed the above. ODST the game should always be italicized to differentiate between that and the military unit in the game itself. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, In the second paragraph of Setting and characters there is one reference for that entire paragraph, sentences like "it was used to enhance the storyline" sound like WP:OR, did anyone notable say that it was suposed to enhance the story? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more or less said, but it's kind of random placed where it is, so I removed it anyhow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 10:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The game's protagonist is the unnamed Rookie, a new member of the Orbital Drop Shock Troopers. Troopers, known as ODSTs or Helljumpers, often deploy in small, one-man Human Entry Vehicles (HEVs), launched from spaceships in the upper atmosphere" Helljumpers? The source clearly does not state Helljumpers. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally sourced. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportWell, there could be more issues, but I'd have to intentionally look for all of them as to impede its featured elevation. Definitely a good enough article for Featured status. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by H3llkn0wz

Comment. Prose says "85.97%", infobox says "85.47%". Anyway, it looks really good. I admit I didn't read thoroughly but may later.— Hellknowz ▎talk 23:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice catch, the figures were out of date. Fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"no one should have any qualms about ODST’s value as a [US]$60 offering!" should ODST be italic? Other places (i.e. roughly two-thirds of ODST's combat feels very much like a traditional Halo game"" do use italics). — Hellknowz ▎talk 00:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Recalled Staten, "we realized that in Halo we do a pretty..." - cannot make sense of this sentence/quote. Is "Recalled Staten" a name or...?
Curly (typographical) apostrophes:
- "we realized that in Halo we do a pretty good job of describing the clash of these military industrial complexes, but it really is the soldiers’ story,” and Halo 3: ODST offered
- "no one should have any qualms about ODST’s value as a [US]$60 offering!"
- ""if we’d never said the words 'expansion pack' we would have see..."
- Schiesel, Seth (2009-09-23). "Visiting New Mombasa? It’s One Dangerous Burg"

That probably borders on nitpicking, but per WP:PUNC for consistency couldn't hurt. — Hellknowz ▎talk 00:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the commas. To your query, it's "Recalled Staten" as in "Staten (the person) recalled {the verb}." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It reads very weird to me that way. I haven't seen a construct used that way before. Why not just "Staten recalled, "...""? — Hellknowz ▎talk 17:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of style, really. I think it's a bit more active and less repetitious that way; I'm fairly sure it's grammatically correct. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is Category "Xbox 360 games" needed if there is "Xbox 360-only games"?
Template "Bungie Studios" redirects to "Bungie", any reason former is used? Future template incentive?

Support. Seems very well done. Except Recalled Staten. I have nightmares about this. — Hellknowz ▎talk 22:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments:

Ref. 5: This supports the statement: "The player's head-up display (HUD) includes a "VISR" mode that outlines enemies in red, allies in green, and important items in yellow." Where in the source is this verified?

~~Refs 7 and 15 are to the same source. One has a page number, the other not.~~
Ref. 44: What is "Music4Games"? How could I verify this citation?
~~Ref. 115: This is cited to Time, italicised to suggest the magazine. Surely it should be cited to the Techland website (of which Time Inc. is joint publisher with CNN)?~~

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Huh, not sure what that source was doing there, since it wasn't citing anything... replaced, fixed the above. Music4Games is definitely a reliable publication (hosted numerous reviews, interviews, and sponsorships, and featured audio pros in the business as staff), but they've since closed their doors in a rather hurried fashion. The URL is commented out in the reference body in the hope that it will reappear on Archive.org. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is a reliable source still reliable when it can't be verified? Brianboulton (talk) 13:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well WP:LINKROT says that a dead link is not reason for removal; I'll look and see if some of the content is mirrored somewhere else, though. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have you tried the Wayback Machine? Tezero (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Unfortunately it's either not been archived by Wayback, or it's still within the archiving window and hasn't appeared. Ultimately if it never resurfaces I'll probably remove as it's used as a fairly minor source of info, but until I'm sure it's dead and gone I'll keep it (other sources from the site have appeared so far.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I think it is overall a very comprehensive and complete article. Tezero (talk) 00:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support As Tezero notes above me, very comprehensive article and easy to understand even if you do not normally play video games. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A well-written article on a brilliant game. ceranthor 17:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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