Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:08, 11 July 2009 [1].

Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge[edit]

Nominator(s): Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article candidates/Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge/archive1

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets FA criteria. I considered waiting until I had a screen capture device, but the two pics should be sufficient to describe the gameplay. Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 04:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the prose is not up to 1a standard; it requires a good deal of auditing for extraneous phrasing and just plain poor grammar. I'm not sure that File:CS HR Zeppelin.jpg's rationale meets WP:NFCC. There's also some rather strange layout choices (putting development before plot, separating the soundtrack from the rest of development and putting it after marketing tie-ins.) I would suggest withdrawing and finding some copyeditors to work on it. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restructured the article and hopefully resolved any objections to the second screengrab. Can you give me any examples of this bad phrasing and grammar? --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree, the prose is poor. This interesting contribution suffers from redundancy and bad grammar. I have offered some pointers here [2]. This nomination is premature, sorry, I suggest you find a good copy-editor who is also a gamer. Graham Colm ^Talk 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On its own, the prose isn't bad enough to warrant a withdrawal. Prose can be fixed quickly. However, I noticed a lack of exrensive referencing in many sections, particularly Gameplay. That, the use of bulleted lists and unnecessary detail, and the prose makes me suggest a withdrawal. Try having the article peer reviewed, and look at recent VG FACs to get an idea of the standards. For example, the very recent Halo Wars. As for the prose, it's going to need a complete overhaul. I'm not sure who you could ask for help on that; most of Wikipedia's best copyeditors are hard to get, because of their busy schedules. In conclusion, sorry, but it isn't there yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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