Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by David Fuchs (talk | contribs) at 20:39, 20 March 2007 (no more fact tags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Halo 2

Didn't get a thorough consensus last time I nominated it; I addressed people's concerns, but they didn't return and pass judgement... previous FAC below. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previous FAC

I'll look. Unfortunately those all come from compressed cinematics from hbo, I had to clean it up some but the black shows most artifacts. I'll see if there's another one, unfortunately thats the only time you see the two together. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And this means... what? Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dåvid Fuchs's reply was in response to History Fan's original comment, "Too many video games." There are several printed sources — for example, the game manuals, which could be considered printed, and GamePro, a magazine. S.D. 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose It's a great article- but the subject matter is tired. Theres a huge amount of video-game articles out there. Wow, YAVGA (Yet Another Video Game Article). How about putting all that work into a subject of importance? Nice article, too bad it had to be about a video game. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can't seriously see how you can possibly justify opposing a well-written article just because its about a subject you don't find interesting... so much for 'don't be a dick'... Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to start name calling. I'm trying to give you an objective opinion of the article. It's well done, except for the subject matter (it also has no printed citations, but there's no need to get into that) The subject matter is very important. You could write the best Article in the world about pocket lint, with great formatting and lot's of pictures, and it's still just an article about pocket lint. I mean no offense. It's a great article, but so are a bazillion others about video games.Sue Rangell[citation needed] 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This opposition, as with the one above, are not legitimate complaints and are therefore unactionable. Halo 2 may just be a video game, but it is an incredibly notable one. Qjuad 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I still oppose on the grounds that there is not even a single printed citation or source. It's all websites, not a single ISBN in the bunch. Websites are at best secondary sources, and at worse not to be counted as sources at all. Almost everything is from a single website (bungie.net). The dates are a mess too. A lot of dates are missing. Also, in many spots the dialogue shifts from present tense to past tense uneccessarily, and that makes it difficult to read. Fix that stuff, and I'll change my vote. Sue Rangell[citation needed] 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Websites are treated as sources on almost every single featured Wikipedia article. There is nothing anything inherently inferior about reliable online material compared against printed material; featured video game articles such as Half-Life 2 also have only two, maybe three printed sources. The same also goes for many featured articles in the media/computer/video game categories where the most abundant sources of information will be found online. Qjuad 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bungie.net is the official website of the company who makes Halo 2. It is not an indenpendent source of information, so you should be careful what you reference from them. Awadewit 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything wrong with using only web-sources, easiest to obtain and you can verify what is cited by looking at the source... M3tal H3ad 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Great article — as igordebraga said, it's as good as, if not better than, Halo: Combat Evolved. One comment: I suggest finding a source for the following line, "The game's Campaign mode has received some criticism, from the lack of Earth-based missions, to dissatisfaction with the abrupt, cliffhanger ending that sets up the sequel, Halo 3." May I remind History Fan and Sue Rangell that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it." Cheers, S.D. 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well-written, informative, thorough, and sourced. Please fix the citation needed tag under "Reception" though. Thanks. -Bluedog423Talk 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose right now. A few things that need checked out:
  • Image:Halo02.jpg looks like it should be fair use, not CC.
  • Dates are needed for many of the references (for example, the GameSpot review ref should have a date parameter in the form of date=[[YEAR-MM-DD]])
  • The article still has some {{fact}} tags.
  • Should "superbouncing" and "superjumping" be capitalized? I don't think so...
  • The "Xbox Live updates" section needs wikified and more inline citations. --- RockMFR 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I fixed the new image added, and I'm in the process of adding dates when they actually give them to me. Fixed the fact thing, I swear I must have had that sourced before, it got moved or something... capitalizations has been fixed, and I'll see about adding more inline citations to that section later. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to fix — the paragraph beginning with "In June 2006, an additional online matchmaking..." is rather poorly written — I can't really even understand what it is trying to say. --- RockMFR 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's fixed. Since no one outside of Halo 2 multi knows what those playlists mean, I just folded the lead sentence into the last paragraph, reworded it, and deleted the rest. Now, for those inline citations... Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Contains {{fact}} tags. Mrmoocow 10:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't anymore. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Halo_2&oldid=116613090"