Wikipedia:Featured article review/Age of Empires II/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 4:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC) [1].

Age of Empires II

Notified: Giggy, WikiProject Microsoft, WikiProject Video games

Review section

This article was promoted in October 2008. Over the last eleven years standards have risen and this article has not kept pace and it no longer represents the best we have. There is a lot of unsupported information, POV/opinions and unencyclopaedic input. – SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The big issue is the "Single player campaigns" section. These don't seem particularly encyclopedic to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some initial thoughts:

The campaigns can probably be condensed down to a line or two for each campaign, given that they follow the very real historical events. It’s not an original plot.
The unsourced gameplay stuff can be pretty easily trimmed and cited; I think the stuff that would be difficult to cite is the minutiae and that can go.
The development section could use a prose edit and seems a little slight given the caliber of game AoE II was, so I’m going to look for retrospectives and the like to fill it out.
Anyone care if I straight-up spin out all the Age of Empires II HD stuff? All the DLC info and reception stuff seems like there’s enough content for its own article rather than this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd certainly co-sign the attempt, especially when maintaining an FA is concerned. I find that game FAs that get ported often start to degrade because of port articles feeling tacked on. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ditto from me. Go for it David. --Izno (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely focused on sourcing. and significant addition of material that has now been spun out. Can folks - @Lee Vilenski, David Fuchs, Abryn, and Izno:...and hopefully others - please comment on progress? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd favour to remove. There are subsections (such as Single player campaigns) that are completely unsourced, which wouldn't pass a GA nomination. However, I don't feel like it should be all that difficult to remedy this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to remove until such time as the article is worked. --Izno (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still at the remove point. There is still a lot of unsourced material on the page (although it's only a fraction of what was there before) and 101 small, bitty MoS violations within the rather lumpy text. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting folks it needs to remain here for two weeks unless something happens before being delisted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my attempt to find a source for the Wonders, I came across this. I think it's self-published and thus not reliable, but I found a discrepancy between it and the article; the article contains an unsourced assertion that the Franks' Wonder is Notre-Dame de Paris, while the link above says it's Chartres Cathedral. I have removed the Notre Dame assertion for the time being. I was not able to find any better sources for the Wonders on Google. (EDIT:Even the above website notes that building identification was the best guess of the Heaven Games community. I've removed both identifications in order to avoid repeating Heaven Games's original research.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Pretty much explained by everyone else that this does not meet the criteria for FA in its current state. GamerPro64 23:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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