Wikipedia:Featured article review/BZFlag/archive1

BZFlag

Article is no longer a featured article

Review commentary

Messages left at User talk:Lan56 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games. Sandy 00:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned about this article's current standing as a featured article as representative of Wikipedia's best. It was apparently nominated and elected as FA back in February of 2005 (see review candidate page).

There is an extreme lack of references. There are four expanded URLs listed in the references section, which, I suppose, are to encompass the information in the listed headers. There are also numbered Wikipedia:External links acting as citation - there are three links in the (very short) introduction and one in the Developers subsection. Many statistics and questionable subjective statements are left uncited.

For example, "This new mode added a requirement of strategy and skill, which was sufficient to keep interest." and "In 1997, the release of version 1.7d came with a groundbreaking new feature". The prose is not brilliant by any means, the subsections are very small, and several links have no relevance in the article (rectangular, yellow, red, green, blue, purple) There are also tables of both the version history and map creation, as well as lists of flags found within the game, that are not presented in an encylopedic manner and appear to exist only to take up space. ~ Hibana 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No inline citations. Poor references. Some listy and stubby sections. I also think that the lay-out needs some more work.--Yannismarou 17:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Move to FARC, poorly referenced, needs work as indicated by Yannismarou, no one is working on improvements. Sandy 23:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), sectioning (2), and prose (1a). Marskell 10:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. No work has gone into the article, and it still contains all of the problems that caused this nomination. JimmyBlackwing 22:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Doesn't meet FA standards. --Tristam 04:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Inline citation issues (1. c. violation) and listy sections (1. a. violation). LuciferMorgan 13:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Lack of references + long lists of irrelevant and WP:NOT-type information. -- Steel 13:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]