Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2048 (video game)/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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2021 [1].

2048 (video game)

Nominator(s): Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 14:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the video game 2048. It passed a GA recently, and I'm trying to get it to FA status. Thanks, Thanoscar21^talk_{contributions} 14:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Will do, and claim for WikiCup points. Hog Farm _Talk 14:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing requirements for GA is reliability, for FA it is instead "high-quality RS".

per WP:RSP, there is no consensus on the reliability of Business Insider, so it does not meet the FA "high-quality RS" standard.
WP:VGRS lists Softonic as inconclusive on being an RS, so it does not meet the FA high-quality standard
Buzzfeed is not high-quality RS
What makes Radio Times a high-quality RS
Tech Crunch is also listed an inconclusive at VG:RS, not high-quality RS
What makes Udacity (which seems to mainly be known as a for-profit university), a high-quality RS about technology?
What makes MathWorks, Inc a high-quality RS?
There seem to be scholarly sources that are not used. I got the provided examples freely through The Wikipedia Library, which is accessible upon application to most editors. This and this are examples, there is likely more.

Sorry, but I don't think WP:FACR 1c is met (many sources are not high-quality RS, and the coverage of this game in scholarly sources does not appear to be fully included, so I'll be opposing and suggesting peer review. Hog Farm _Talk 15:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Hog Farm. On Google Scholar I can find various unused scholarly sources such as [2][3][4][5] You don't need to cite every paper but the total lack (studies have covered machine learning for playing the game, computational complexity, and other issues not discussed in your article) indicates that comprehensiveness is not met. At only 1,000 words the article has plenty of room for expansion without being too long. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note

While I am sure that there is an FAC which could be created from this article, it is also clear - as the reviewers above identify - that it is not there yet. I would suggest seeking assistance at WikiProject Video games, seeking a mentor and/or submitting the article for Peer review. I look forward to seeing it back here in better shape in the fullness of time. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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