Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/3D Monster Maze/archive2

3D Monster Maze

Self-renomination. Previous FAC objections have been addressed, another peer review ended, resulting in even more productive edits, and, finally, the article got a green light from two of the original objectors. --BACbKA 18:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've watched this article grow with a lot of work from BACbKA and others. I first became alerted to the article when BACbKA came to my talk page to ask me about an article I'd written on another non-WP website (I used the same nickname on that page, hence his finding me) in order to clarify a research point. I think this attention to detail is indicative of the work that went into the article as a whole. I also see that previous objections have been addressed. With this in mind, I see no reason why this article can't make it to FAC. Nach0king 12:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nice to see an older game article be improved. Process to get here was very positive as well. Batmanand 15:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the "critical acclaim" section somewhat bothers me because of its abundance of quotes and relatively few prose. Would it be possible to rewrite this section or improve it? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave one quote per one stage in the press reflection of the game that I know of. I felt that all are essential, so I don't fancy any of them for being cut away completely, but if you want to increase the prose/quote ratio, you're welcome to give it a try. It's probably a good idea not to lengthen the section substantially beyond its current size, because of the relative proportion to the other History subsections. If you are unsure whether your version is better than the present, please suggest a variant on the article talk page; otherwise, just go ahead and change it. --BACbKA 20:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! The main thing I'm concerned about is the seemingly random collection of quotes; were those that you chose significant in any way, or were they simply representative of all the critics' views? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to give a single representative quote out of a bulk of similar quotes per each period of the game/Sinclair platform/retrogaming timeline (such timeline precise definition in other terms would probably be original research by myself). I didn't try to suppress some kind of known quotes that express a different opinion, of course :-) --BACbKA 21:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just consolidated the citations of the 2 references in this section with their other appearances in the article; this eliminated cut and paste jobs (and restored synchronization of diverging citation info), as well as made the non-prose proportion slightly shorter, while actually cutting no info! Hopefully this looks better. --BACbKA 22:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll go ahead and support. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fabulous. —Eternal Equinox | talk 18:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support An excellent article. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I wish more of the video game articles used this as a template, as many of the newer game articles focus on the characters and storyline and not the technology, sales, or inspiration. A quick but enjoyable read, although I agree with the earlier comment that the critical section is a little awkward. --Ataricodfish 07:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A solid article. I've read throught the Critical acclaim section several times again and while I find the form a bit odd (in lack of a better word) also, I really can't find anything concrete to point the finger on. It might just be unusually objective. :) I have one grievance though; we should try to fix the remaining dead links (Malcolm Evans (computer programmer) and Trashman). --Frodet 23:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support - Until Malcolm Evans (computer programmer), J.K. Greye Software, and Trashman are created. This will give it more of a professional look. Good article overall, though. ^KILO-_LIMA 14:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, just after pressing the Preview button, I found out that J.K. Greye Software has been created! ^KILO-_LIMA 14:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm pretty sure containing red-links is not a feature that prohibits an article from becomming featured. I believe there has been discussion on this in the past, and the concensus was that as long as the majority of links aren't red, it should be okay. Fieari 19:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I took the opportunity to create some content for the missing links. Please feel free to contribute to them as well. :) --Frodet 23:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - After reading my edit above. ^KILO-_LIMA 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Informative article. deeptrivia (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support good, interesting article, well referenced. --Larsinio 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great article, very interesting subject, great writing. --light darkness^(talk) 01:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I was one of those original objectors, but its author really made an effort. It's fairly short, but I don't think there's much that can be added to the article in order to improve it. Makes a nice template for other game articles, indeed. -- Cugel 09:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. While I did indeed make the majority of the edits, there effort was made by several other wikipedians as well, and some of this help by others was really instrumental in reaching today's quality of the article. Thanks to everyone who contributed, and to folks like you who had provided constructive critisism. --BACbKA 11:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object I am blanket objecting all nominations that fail to use the new cite format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- While technically an "actionable" objection, since something could be done to fix it, "Uses the very latest in mediawiki formatting" isn't actually anything remotely close to an FA criteria. It has references, these references are linked inline, are in their own section... that's about what was required. Fieari 15:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hipocrite, if you really care for the reference style over at the 3DMAZE article, you probably should try to join the relevant discussion on its talk page. (My personal opinion is that the citation/reference format should be generic and the rendering should be customizable as per the style sheet/user preferences in effect, so that each of us would see it in the style we like it). If you want to make a general point about adding a new requirement to the featured articles, try achieving consensus on the matter at the general FAC discussion forum. As it is, as Fieari has just pointed, references style has not been a reason for objection in FA nomination, so your vote will probably not be counted as it is. Dispersing it across several FAC votes also has (intentionally or not) a FUD effect, by discouraging other editors from using the styles you don't like, in case they happen to read your objections before comments like the replies you've gotten here so far. Please reconsider your means to achieve the goal. --BACbKA 16:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - To be clear, my objection is not to harvard vs. ref-note, but to the continued use of ref-note over the clearly superior Cite.php format. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not ref-note, but {{ref harvard}}/{{note label}} in this case; AFAIU cite.php doesn't support it yet. (If it produced the same results with simpler markup than is used now, I'd have welcomed the switch.) And I still believe that you're trying to discuss it at the wrong place as per above. --BACbKA 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Explained how to get ref harvard into Cite.php on your talk page. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Objection withdrawn - putting Harvard style footnotes into this (better) style is a bit of a hack, and not pretty enough in the current implimentation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine then. If and when it works in a backward-compatible way, and allows to do the same H.refs with less markup than the ref-harvard/note-label, I'll be happy to try it out. --BACbKA 17:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. As you seem to be withdrawing it elsewhere, too (at least in the one other current FAC thread I am watching), let me thank you for that --- certainly it no longer has any sustained FUD effect. :-) BTW, you might want to use ~~striken through~~ font to cross out your "Object" vote in these other threads (I've just done it for you here). --BACbKA 17:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support well done --PopUpPirate 16:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks like objections have been cleared. good job making the subject interesting to the average reader. psch e mp | talk 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good article. --Ter e nc e Ong 16:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]