Talk:NHL 11

Cover athlete

Yahoo! reports that Jonathan Toews will be on the cover of NHL 11: http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/From-Conn-Smythe-to-NHL-11-cover-boy-for-Jonat?urn=nhl,248357. Not sure where to put this on the page. --Mwn3d (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of sources have cited that image. But until EA has officially announced it, it's still considered speculation, as plenty could happen in the meantime. But once it's confirmed, I would probably put it in a small blurb in the lead, as it's really not the focus of the game at all. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 04:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right. After a more careful it doesn't even look like a picture of the game. It's just a picture of him with the game's title near it. I undid an edit by someone else citing that article as an actual announcement of the cover art. --Mwn3d (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

Can someone tell me where the pictures are from? c.m1994 (Wanna talk to me, go here.) 7:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Click on each picture to take you to that picture's information page. It should be under "Source" in the Summary, which states that they're from GameSpot. They're also available on the official website; check the "External links" section to find it. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 19:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I love the NHL games. Can't wait. c.m1994 (Wanna talk to me, go here.) 22:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Demo info being removed

As well all know by now the Demo is coming out next week. However, there are some people here, probably those who are mad that 2k games isnt making any hockey games anymore, who keep removing the Demo date. Those of you who want the source of info, please check out EASports NHL 11 page tonight at 6pm EST for Full coverage on the Demo dates.

Thank you

EA Sports 11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easports11 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your username, I can't help but suspect you may have a conflict of interest in promoting this demo. Probably a good idea to let the issue rest for a while. Taroaldo (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

No conflict of interest whatsoever. Just sharing the info. Much like the release date for actual game (September 7th) is on the Wiki page, I dont see why people have to edit and remove the release date for a DEMO. Its just a demo for crying out loud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easports11 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Once there is a solid source that we can use, the information can easily be added. Jmlk17 20:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

You Do realize that there are tons of unverified garbage in Wiki, right? Dont worry about the demo, it will reach those interested via EA Forums and other PS3/360-related sources. Its sad that few people can play God here, no wonder why Wiki is more of a joke these days.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Easports11 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

actually, a joke is adding unsourced material. Find a source, add it, it is that simple. Just because some articles have few sources does not mean this one ought to. Dbrodbeck ([[U

ser talk:Dbrodbeck|talk]]) 21:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Source is EA.COM , go look & verify ! --Easports11 (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

[1]

Now that it has been announced, could you please change it back !? --Easports11 (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I think you've misunderstood what we are saying. We don't say you're wrong with your information, we simply mean that you have a conflict of interest, and you are basically doing good faith edits, which are not encyclopedic. Also, if you continue to reinsert, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. /HeyMid (contributions) 23:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, your edit would have been reverted anyways, when you didn't provide a reliable soure for us, which is basically assuming good faith. /HeyMid (contributions) 23:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Kotaku a reliable source? http://kotaku.com/5611715/nhl-11-demo-is-out-on-tuesday UltimateSin01 (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But a demo is not notable enough to have its own headline, I have already written the release dates for the demo in a paragraph, see the intro text. Thanks. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I was on board with the whole "need a source" debate going on, because even if it's tedious and detrimental at times, it's the only way to have control over the crap some people add to this site in order to hold on to credibility; however this whole "a demo is not notable enough to have its own headline" business is ridiculous. Who are you to decide what is ‘notable’ enough? I’m sure wikigeeks on here will find some predetermined criteria for what’s considered notable; however considering the popularity of the title and limited new information added to this article in the last month, the release of a demo which will be downloaded by millions is quite “notable”… at least for the time being. This debate is silly to say the least. I feel it’s important to have some control over those who want to add illegitimate facts to this site; however it’s equally important to make sure that that control is not abused and that some individuals don’t put themselves above others and hijack this PUBLIC encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.150.16 (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, in most cases, there isn't much to write about a demo other than it's a very small subset of the game. Therefore, they can easily be summed up in a couple of sentences, which is undeserving of an entire section. However, if you can find enough material to write a long paragraph, or maybe two or three paragraphs, I'd be happy to include a new section. In fact, in this case you may even be able to, given that this demo does unlock things in the actual game. So if you can find enough material, go for it! –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 04:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering, where did you find that information Schmloof? c.m1994 (Sup, talk if you want 00:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You mean about the unlockables? There's a news post from today on EA's website. There was information earlier on their In the Crease blog, but I'm not sure which post, but it was definitely there. Anyway, today's info probably contains the earlier info. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 02:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Demo paragraph expanded

I've expanded the demo paragraph and moved it down, and to a new section named "Demo". Please give me your personal opinions about that section I've expanded. It is possible that the section should be moved up a little bit.

Two more things:

1. I am not sure whether the "EA Pucks" part is related to the demo or not, so I added it to the "Gameplay" section instead.
2. "You will earn EA Pucks after every game you play in HUT whether they win or lose." Does it mean it doesn't matter whether I win or lose the game, I'll still earn EA Pucks? /HeyMid (contributions) 20:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

They're part of the actual game, and yes. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 01:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

And then it's "players" or "users". I am writing "players". /HeyMid (contributions) 10:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

General

In this diff I converted all bullets in the "Gameplay features" section (now named just "Gameplay") to prose. In that diff I also made some copyedits. I also split the Gameplay section to a new smaller level2 headline named "Modes".

Also, in the "Be a GM additions", what does "RFA" mean? Also, the "Leagues and teams" section needs to be betterly sourced, particularly the first and fourth paragraph. Also, in the same section I'm wondering whether it should say "has the licensed use" or "has licensed the use". HeyMid (contributions) 17:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Playoff Simulation

Is anyone going to write a brief paragraph that EA Sports NHL 11 was 8 for 8 for the First Round of Playoffs and 3 for 4 for the Second Round? This is a fairly impressive simulation and even gets NHL recognition... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.70.37 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:NHL 11/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA Review

I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days. Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found. As criteria pass, a or will be replaced with a . Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found. Feel free to work on them at any time. I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article. At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.

Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Issues found

Unfortunately I have to Quick-Fail this article due to several major issues:

• The lead is lacking information on gameplay and reception of the game. Per WP:LEAD, it should be a summary of the article
• Overall the prose needs copy edits and general cleanup. I recommend a peer review to help bring the prose up to snuff.
• It needs reorganization under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines to comply with standards. Take a look at Backbreaker (video game) for how to organize a sports game article.
• There are {{Citation needed}} tags on the article.
• The Development and Promotion section has no info on the development of the game, only the promotion
• Soundtracks should not be listed unless they have been released commercially separate from the game, and then only with significant coverage themselves.
• The Reception section needs to be expand to at least twice its current size, organized by the positive/negative paragraphs, then type of comments (AI, graphics, etc).

Result: Quick-Failed

Reviewer: Teancum (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on NHL 11. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nhl-11-first-hands-on/1100-6264823/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nhl-11-hands-on/1100-6266343/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=537047
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160529213959/http://www.1up.com/reviews/nhl-11-review to http://www.1up.com/reviews/nhl-11-review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)