Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinistar: Unleashed/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 not promoted by GrahamColm 22:39, 4 October 2012 [1].

Sinistar: Unleashed

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because i have rewritten it from scratch will all information available, so i think it is comprehensive enough. Additionally, it has been reviewed at GAN (finally becoming a good article) and i consider that all the cirteria has been met. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize myself. I have been very busy and then unable to properly follow this nomination. I will take care of all concerns as soon as possible. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as I said in my additional comments in the GA review:
The reception section uses only a handful of sources: it scraped the GA "broad" criterion and is no where near FAC's "comprehensive". Very few reviews of this game can apparently be sourced via the internet, but a much greater volume of reviews in contemporary print magazines can be seen to exist. One way or another a broader selection of these would need to be sourced if this is ever to pass FAC.
The prose isn't up to FA standard, especially when explaining the in-game elements. It needs to be copy edited by someone both good at writing and probably familiar with subject matter. Someone who hasn't played the game can only grasp the very basic gist of what the "Distilled Evil", "Sporg", "mining ships", "bio-mechanical machine", "jumpgate" and so forth is all about. bridies (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Bridies regarding the sourcing. I can help you out with the PC Zone review if you drop me an email. - hahnch e n 17:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thirded on the sourcing- IGN was a two-bit website in 1999, not a wing of a massive media conglomerate. I've given the article a run-through copyedit for grammar (note for future reference that "considered" is not a synonym for "said", and that something cannot be "comprised by" its parts- it "comprises" the parts, and it's such an easy word to misuse that you're better off not using it at all (I don't). I didn't work on bettering the usage of in-game terms, though, besides breaking up long sentences, so you still need that (not to mention my copyediting isn't quite up to FA standards.) --Pres N 18:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, i think i got the prose fixed now. Some experienced hands helped me at it. I will work on the reception section tomorrow to get it done. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness

You really don't need locations for web sources, but if you choose to include them, you should do so for all and should be more specific than just US
Check hyphens vs dashes
What makes Adrenaline Vault a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a reliable source for what it seems, although i doubt its reliability. I will make another check. PD. Metacritic uses the site to make their score. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:55, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update In their about us page, they state this: "Once a commercial web site and now a respected game blog, Avault remains a refuge from much of the industry’s compromised reporting and biased reviews." Also, IGN has several of their reviews store in their their website. Metacritic includes the site when aggregating their score [2]. I guess that it should be enough. — ΛΧΣ21™ 14:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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