Wikipedia:Featured article review/Half-Life 2/archive2

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 removed by Dana boomer 01:01, 30 June 2010 [1].

Half-Life 2

Review commentary

Notified: Plumbago, Tom Edwards, Rehevkor, Nufy8 and WikiProject Video games

The Production Development section contains too much info about Steam. Info about the Steam application itself should be in the Steam article. Info that applies to Steam AND Half-life 2 and not any other games should be moved to the release section. The negative reception should be moved to the Release section. Fails 4. & 2b.
There is nothing about all the European players being unable to play the game, despite all the negative coverage it got.[2][3][4] Fails 1c & 1d.
The Expansions and modifications section goes in to too much detail and contains info about mods with only primary sources. This relate to the game itself or the engine it is on?. Fails 4.
~~Citations 14, 15, 16 are not complete, and are they reliable?~~ Many citations are missing author names, publish dates and other applicable information, citations are not consistent. Fails 2c.

Reviewsontherun citation is not working.--Vaypertrail (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The Half-Life Fallout citations 34 to 41 all just go to the websites front page.(2c)~~
The last sentence of the Narrative section looks like original research. (1c)
And for such a notable game which has been released on so many platforms, it really seems underdeveloped. For example, there is nothing about how well it was received on the gaming console platforms.

The article became featured in 2006, but hasn't really stood the test of time and really needs a major revamp to continue meeting the featured article criteria.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some problems are fixable (mostly the reference formating, bad links, and the like) but not fundamentally bad to drop it from featured. Some points:

This was the first major game that was tied to Steam on the PC. The fact that it caused problems (this is what you're referring to by the European issues as well) trying to play the game are necessary to document as part of the Steam tie in. The references you have for the European issues can be added there, but the problem wasn't isolated to Europe.

As far as sources say, the players being totally unable to register there game was in Europe only.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And that's part of the overall "problems with Steam and HL2 on launch" that are already in the article. There's no need to further clarify the details, though we can certainly add the BBC source you supply as another facet. --MASEM (t) 12:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Expansion section doesn't see to be that details (it calls out to two other articles). As there are sourced mods on the third-party mod page (and most of those are third-party sources separate from Steam or the mod developers), they can be easily added here. Fixable.
The narrative sentence is accurate - it is basically saying the story continues into Ep1 and 2. Maybe the wording change, but again, nothing difficult to correct.

Look at the sources for it.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As HL2 never got a standalone release on consoles, only through the Orange Box, there's not much that could be added there. I think a link to the OBox article would help.

Again, I think most of the points are fixable with attention but not to the degree that requires demotion. (I will try to fix some of them myself ) --MASEM (t) 16:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, these aren't all minor problems that any editor can just fix.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed refs 14, 15, and 16 and fixed piped links to the best of my abilities. I'm gonna work on some other refs. that failed 2c. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you guys take a look at my changes in citations 34-41? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the WP:OR of the first sentence in the narrative sentence, there is an article in the January/February issue of GamePro that talks about silent protagonists, however, I never had the time to buy it but I did read it. Does anyone have anyway to access this issue? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some articles talking about gordon's characterization, [5] and [6] Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the FAR section include referencing and content. Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at this article multiple times, it pains me to say that this article should be Delisted. Though I do think that it could be a Good Article with a little more work. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out some of the outstanding issues so they could be addressed. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainty. I see reference problems in the article, like un-referenced material. A bad sight to see. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Very choppy prose yet; lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs and a few unsourced sections. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At this point, since there is a contributor who is obviously willing to work on the article, reviewers shouldn't be entering one-line delist declarations. Instead, they should be commenting on specific issues that need to be addressed before the article is kept, including giving specific examples. Dana boomer (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is exactly what I need. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Dana-- I'm seeing lots of uncritical delists lately at FAR. Uncontroversial statements don't require citation, and dead links aren't an automatic reason for delisting either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, agree with exactly everything in the above comment by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), who is right on the mark about deficiencies in the article. Might be best to try for getting up to speed first for current WP:GA standards. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to all reviewers, please give specifics!! We have a user interested in improving this article, but general comments like "very choppy prose" are not generally very helpful. Give examples of the choppy prose, outline exactly which sections you feel need references (remember, non-controversial statements don't necessarily need refs!), etc. You don't have to list every instance of the above, but a few examples are much more helpful than a one-line comment, especially when there is an interested editor. This process is about improving articles to the current FA status, not quickly rushing them through the process for an easy delist. Dana boomer (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per request of Dana, I have listed the parts of the article that needs referencing. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of the "Setting" section.
The first, second, an last sentence in the "Narrative" section.
The last sentences in the second and third paragraph in the "Development" section.

Hopefully, I'm not nit-picking. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The last paragraph of setting, has some OR and it mentions an interview, so i'll reword it and reference that interview.
- The 1st, 2nd, and last sentence part of the 1st paragraph of the narrative section? They seem pretty obvious, so I won't have trouble finding refs. for that.
- Those last sentences of the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of the development section are completely OR, and definitely are going to be entirely removed.

I'll update you when I get them. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well GamerPro, I've addressed your problems to the best of my ability, if there is anymore discrepencies needed to be fixed please point them out. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would give more examples of problems with the article, but seeing as most of the things I've said haven't been fixed, I don't see much point. So I'm sticking with my belief that it should be delisted.--Vaypertrail (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please strike through the statements of yours above that have been met and bold those that have not been met so I can understand your above statement more easily. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Vaypertrail (talk) 06:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Per the reviewontherun link, it links to the page that has the link to a video on that page which says "Best Games of 2004", you have to click on that to get the video you want. It doesn't automatically give ou the video. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, some of the issues you've stated aren't really issues. The Steam paragraph is elaborating on information about the release of HL2 on the PC, while also stating Steam information without the need to click the Wikilink. The european part is something I will address later in the reception section. The mods section is relating to the legacy left by HL2, however does not state HL2 but rather the engine HL2 popularized. The reception part about consoles is addressed in the Orange Box as a whole but, I think I could take some reviews from there and use the parts of the reviews that focus on HL2. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Subzerosmokerain, I will try to be a bit more clearer.

The Half-Life_2#Development section contains unnecessary detail on the Steam (content delivery) program which is already in that article.
If the game has left a legacy and caused these new 'notable' mods to be created, then they will need to be covered by third-party reliable sources. Currently they are only covered by primary sources.

I think that covers it.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that the information is unnecessary nor does keeping it in the text provide any detriment to the article, it's just an in-depth coverall for what's covered in the Steam article, but instead of the reader having to leave the HL2 article, they can just read what is there already.
I'll cover the mods too in the reception, along with the console ports.(With the secondary reliable sources you are asking for). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the article again, I believe that my referencing concerns have been fixed. That being said, I say Keep Half-Life 2's FA status. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by mav

Over-long sentence, please break-up: "The game's available arsenal consists of modern-day projectile weapons, including a ubiquitous pistol, shotgun, and submachine gun, though more elaborate, fictional weapons are available, such as a crossbow that shoots hot metal rods, a pheromone pod that guides certain previously hostile alien creatures, and a pulse rifle that can also launch "Dark energy balls," that disintegrate enemies on contact."
Another over-long sentence. I suggest adding a full stop after "theme" and replacing the semi-colon with a comma. "The environments in Half-Life 2, in accordance with the game's story, all have a distinct post-apocalyptic theme, yet in design they are varied, and include the Eastern European-styled City 17, the zombie-infested Ravenholm; the coastal Nova Prospekt prison and the alien interiors of the Citadel."
I'm pretty sure that full stops should always be inside quote marks at the end of sentences. But I may be wrong in cases where the quote does not end in a full stop.
Last three sentences of ===Awards=== should be combined into a single paragraph, IMO.

But other than the above, I think that the referencing, prose and content are now all up to FA standard. I'm leaning toward a keep, but the above really needs to be fixed first. --mav (reviews needed) 01:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Soundtrack section is a bit skimpy, and poorly sourced. What was reception of the soundtrack like? Who produced it? Some background info on the composer? Lots of small, one-sentence or just short paragraphs in subsection Distribution. The subsection, Critical response, is very small, this should be expanded upon further please. Awards subsection has some odd formatting and placement of cites, and a few one-sentence or short paragraphs. Expansions and modifications - this subsection could be expanded, with a couple paragraphs on reception of these mods. -- Cirt (talk) 21:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note - Although extensive work was completed on the article, there are still several outstanding delists. The main editor has not responded to recent posts asking for updates, and the editors voting to delist the article have posted additional concerns that have not been addressed. When this article is brought back to featured article quality, it may be immediately re-nominated at FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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