Wikipedia:Featured article review/Monopoly (game)/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 removed 13:14, 18 February 2008.

Monopoly (game)

Review commentary

User:JohnDBuell‎, User:Njr75003, User:Colorvision‎, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games notified.

Monopoly (game) is currently a featured article, as everybody knows, but there are some minor problems that need to be fixed: The section, Dealing and bargaining has been tagged with original research or unverified claims, and in section Stock Exchange there's only one statement that needs to have a citation:

The player who lands on Free Parking/Stock Exchange can also choose to buy a share if any remain – should the player decline, the Bank auctions a share off to the highest bidder. The 1936 rules are ambiguous with regards to the stock that is put up for auction, and convention has it that the winner of the auction chooses the stock to be received.

Please check to find the mistakes in the article that I just said. And it may affect the featured article status. --Healthykid (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't think the article's organisation, content and sourcing compares to established FAs. The major problems are the lack of references and some geographical bias. Here's some problems I think should be fixed in the article:
- Only one reference in "History".
- No references in "Rich Uncle Pennybags"
- The "Board" section is very unbalanced. There's no apparent rules of which version should be mentioned or detailed. The full board of the Atlantic City and London version are the only one displayed and detailed. The United Kingdom version have its places listed, while only few European countries' versions are listed alongside McDonald. What I think shoule be changed is:
  - Only display the full layout of the most popular Monopoly board.
  - The trivia about each board (eg. how the streets are misspelled) are not relevant in this page. Some informations about why the city or streets of the most popular board have been chosen could be added.
  - Make a "Regional editions" section, but not as a list, but more as a description of how Monopoly spread to countries editions.
  - Another section about the special editions (McDonald, Star Wars...). But again not as a list but describe the popularity of these games, mention the first one, the most popular...
  - What are the "Here and Now editions"? Are there other editions?
- The "Equipment" and "Rules" section:
  - Remove the information about the One-Of-A-Kind Monopoly. Really unnecessary.
  - Same for the Christmas Wish Book
  - Merge the Equipement and Rules sections, since equipment is part of the rules.
  - Remove too much detailed information like the bills in the US game.
  - Rerwrite the Rules. The Official Rules should be reformatted to be at least clear and readable. Unless you provide a reference that proves that House Rule is as popular, this section should be removed
- The strategy section is also too detailed. Just give an overview of the different strategies and tactics followed by different players.
- Add-ons needs to be referenced.

These are merely fast suggestions that came up to my mind. I didn't have the time to read the whole article. And these are just my opinions and thoughts. In addition the article Chess stands as a good model for game articles. You should check it. Until now I strongly support its delisting from FA. CG (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should fork off the Here and Now Editions' information too - now that so many countries have them and followed the US model of voting for popular cities/landmarks. I don't agree that the special editions information should be lost altogether - perhaps merged into the list articles of the various editions. I thought this article should have been on FAR months ago when it was looking like an advertisement for certain Here and Now Edition voting, but I've had far too many other things on my plate in the last eight months. Delist unless situations are remedied. --JohnDBuell (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs copyediting, too. I noticed three things that need fixing in the first paragraph alone (minor things, including a missing space, but FAs shouldn't have problems like that); I don't know what the rest of it looks like yet, but I suspect it's more of the same. I suggest the article be submitted to the League of Copyeditors, now or once it's been reorganized. (If it's going to be reworked, do the copyediting last.) atakdoug (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing and OR (1c), organization (4), and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Remove for all the suggested criteria concerns. CG (talk) 08:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - several unreferenced sections (1c). --Peter Andersen (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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