Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None


 * 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 promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None
This article is FA. Citations, out-of-universe, brilliant prose IMO, lead summarizes article. I firmly belive that it satisfies all FA critera.Paaerduag 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, well-written and comprehensive. Spoilers should be retained, regardless of the anti-spoiler campaign.-- Nydas (Talk) 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support in any case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse)  00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - spoilers are inappropiate for plot summary as per WP:SPOILER. They should be removed. Sephiroth BCR (Converse)  20:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's a plot summary: the presence of spoilers is horribly redundant. There is no reason why they should be kept. Sephiroth BCR (Converse)  00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only 'redundant' to people who spend large amounts of time on Wikipedia.-- Nydas (Talk) 09:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Or people who know what the words "Plot summary" means? Atropos 03:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed! Please return back to the discussion at hand, about whether this article should be FA.--Paaerduag 07:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support good article, although a very minor issue for me is the one sentence paragraph in the development section. It should be merged or extended if possible. Great article nonetheless.Lemmington 19:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I merged it with the paragraph about the Wii release--Paaerduag 00:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support I was going to give this article a copyedit, but I don't think it needs one. My one gripe is that the sections of 'Characters' and 'Setting' are too short. Can these be expanded somehow? Like for 'Characters' can you describe their abilities and how they interact with one another (and how that affects the game)? If not, then just merge the two sections into one main 'Characters and setting' section.UberCryxic 20:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was considering expanding these, but in my other FAC at Voyage, people told me to cut back on the in-universe stuff, and focus on the out-of-universe stuff. If anything I'll probably combine the sections, because I'm reluctant to expand these per others' comments.Paaerduag 09:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose until it's properly copy-edited. Why are there bloopers in the lead? ...
 * "follows very closely to the plot".
 * "novel, the novel" (and "further the connection" is clumsy).
 * "Reactions to the game ranged were mixed".
 * "Recently"—what will that mean in three years' time?
 * "with some calling"—there are better connectors than "with".
 * "motion sensitive"—must by hyphenated.

There's a sense of deja vue, having just reviewed your other game here. Take care using the same formula. BTW, aren't all games "point-and-click"? I'm ignorant of this area, though. Tony 10:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to address all your concerns. The term 'point-and-click' refers to games in which the player moves around by clicking on various points of the screen, and all the backgrounds are prerendered. Like 'Myst', if you've heard of that.Paaerduag 11:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, with the use of the word recently, is it incorrect to use a word drawing the article to a particular time? I mean can't I just remove that when it isn't recent anymore? I've removed it for now, but unsure on the policy of that sort of 'recentism'.--Paaerduag 11:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you might remember to remove "recently" from an article that you care about, but other editors are not so diligent. There are examples of "recently" in other articles and when you read them and deduce that it all happened three years ago, it's a bit jarring.  It's better to avoid it.  Is it significant that the announcement was made in March 2007?  Instead of saying "On March 19, 2007, The Adventure Company announced that And Then There Were None will be ported to the Wii console.[4] The Wii version of the game is expected to be released during November 2007.[4]" - wouldn't it be easier and more specific to say "The Adventure Company announced that And Then There Were None will be ported to the Wii console with an expected release date of November 2007".  Assuming that the release date is important, and the date of the announcement is not.  It also saves what I consider to be excessive linking to sources - and reduces two links to one without losing anything. (I like both your articles BTW, but I want to read them more carefully before I comment further.)  Rossrs 14:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Fine prose and comprehensive. --Tjkirk 07:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support Well sourced and exhaustive. Most game articles lack such as nice Development section. Kariteh 11:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Article well done. --SkyWalker 12:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - very well done. Comprehensive, focussed and well structured.  Rossrs 14:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Support — well-referenced, well-structured. ··· 巌流 ? · talk to ganryuu 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fix needed Years shouldn't be linked if not accompanied by both a day and a month. Epbr123 23:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.


 * Support - Very well Written. --Sumangal_Vinjamuri 07:38, 16 February 2012 (IST)