Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Empires (video game)/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 Gary King 16:48, 30 January 2009.

Age of Empires (video game)

 * Nominator(s): EclipseSSD (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is a good quality video game article and meets all of the criteria required. I am also happy to make any changes necessary if required to do so in order for this article to become featured. EclipseSSD (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose (only the lead has been reviewed so far)
 * Remove the periods from non-sentences in image captions, like "Two armies squaring off, sporting an array of units.", which is not a sentence.
 * The Fair Use images need better purposes. "Illustrates the entire subject of the article." is not sufficient. They need to explicitly state why the article needs the image in there. Check out something like File:LOTRBFME II Gandalf Power and heroes.jpg for an example.
 * I improved the cover rationale. Salavat (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think only two images should be kept (excluding the cover): one showing gameplay along with the HUD, and another showing the four wonders, although even the latter is debatable.
 * Remove the "in English" parameter in the references—English is assumed.
 * Done. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference 13 has no publisher
 * Added, but not by me. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes artho.com reliable?
 * What makes aoe.heavengames.com reliable?
 * What makes tribulationdesigns.com reliable?
 * What makes gamevortex.com reliable?
 * Reference 45, 46, 47, and 48 are formatted differently from the others.
 * They look like they all use {cite ___} to me.... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to me Gary King  ( talk ) 19:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "by advancing them" – Does advancing them through the four ages really make them a leader? Should probably just be an "and advances them"
 * "each advance" – What does "advance" refer to here?
 * "An expansion" – Perhaps just spell out "An expansion pack" for the uninitiated
 * "the next year" – Don't make it relative, since there's a lot of non-chronological stuff in between the mention of "1997" and this sentence. Perhaps "in 1998" or "the next year in 1998".
 * "The design team" – I think this would be much more clear if it started with "In the expansion pack, the design team"
 * "that some problems"
 * "such as difficulties with the artificial intelligence" – What difficulties?
 * "Age of Empires spans" – Isn't it "The campaign of Age of Empires spans"?
 * "Players aim to gather resources in the game, which they use to" – "Players must gather resources in the game to"
 * "single player" – needs a hyphen between the two words
 * "The game's graphics were praised, as was its gameplay and the variety of units available." – "The game's graphics, gameplay, and the variety of units available were praised."
 * "Some reviewers were critical of the" – "Some reviewers criticized the"
 * "poor artificial intelligence of the game" – "game's poor artificial intelligence"
 * "including Game of the Year and Computer Strategy Game of the Year." – I don't think awards are supposed to be italicized.

Okay, that's everything from the lead. Gary King ( talk ) 17:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think I've addressed the issues here. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Question - Time for the images. Which ones should be kept and which ones removed? --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it up to you to determine which images to keep. Assuming that you can keep as few as possible, which would you use to best explain the gameplay? Most games only require one screenshot, but if the game is complex enough, etc. then one or two more are warranted. Also, the prose is still not up to standards. It is too easy to spot problems, such as "requires the development of a civilization". Also, "resources in order to pay" can be "resources to pay". Please copyedit the entire article, applying the suggestions I gave above for the lead to the rest of the article. Gary King  ( talk ) 01:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a note on the article talk page to determine which images should be kept and which ones removed. Hopefully that will sort out the image issues. I've also contacted the GoCE calling for the article to be copyedited. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * http://www.gamerevolution.com/review/pc/age_of_empires
 * 4 hits on Google Books
 * http://www.mobiletechreview.com/games/age_of_empires.htm
 * 10 hits on Google Books
 * http://www.insanely-great.com/reviews/aoe.html (Lacking a publisher also)
 * http://artho.com/age/lag.html
 * http://aoe.heavengames.com/dl-php/showfile.php?fileid=1790
 * http://aoe.heavengames.com/academy/buildings/wonder3.shtml
 * I've got 5 hits for "HeavenGames" on Google Books, and one on Google News. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.tribulationdesigns.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=8
 * http://artho.com/age/AoE_1.html
 * Current ref 17 (Grossman...) is lacking page numbers.
 * Current ref 18 (Age of Empires Heaven..) is used to support this sentence "Various websites exist where custom scenarios can be submitted and downloaded." but one site doesn't support "various"
 * Current ref 22 (Russell...) is lacking page numbers
 * No need to say that references are in English, that's only needed for non-English sources.
 * Current ref 45 (Age of Empires - PC..) needs a publisher and last access date
 * Current refs 46 (McDonald...) 47 (Bordelon ...) 48 ( Holland...) lack last access dates and they need to list their publisher as the other references in the article do for consistency.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I am in the process of taking care of as much issues brought up so far as possible. As for AoE Heaven, I belive they could be reliable because there are several interviews on the site from key people involved in the video game . --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, GameVortex.com seems to have interviews with key people involved in the various video games etc. As for Game Revolution, I am not entirely sure on that one. It seems to be reliable, having staff and such, but again it's not a website I am familiar with. I am currently replacing references, where I can, and making changes as requested. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Question - Would it be best just to remove the part about data editing altogether? Because the sources there will not be from professional websites. --EclipseSSD (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't know if glitches and stuff like data editing would even be reported by third-party sites. IMO, it should be alright, but I'm not a normal FAC reviewer, only a milhist writer. :) — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  19:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaning Super Strong Oppose as per WP:COPYVIO. I only say "leaning" because I've only looked at one ciation... but.. It's very disheartening to scan an article for likely suspects and immediately come up with copyvio. makes it hard to look further; a bit like opening a patient and finding the cancer has spread too far to operate, so you close the patient back up. The copyvio is in the text here: "The game then went through a modified synchronous model, to enable it to run simultaneously on all machines. Only moves, changes and communications were sent to the other machines, allowing the amount of data sent through to be minimized". Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 15:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'll try and rephrase it. If it doesn't work, it's probably better to remove it. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed 3 out of 4; I believe that ancient civilization should stay linked so that a reader can choose which ancient civilization they wish to read about. — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It should probably still link to a proper article; at the very least, perhaps a list of civilizations rather than a disambiguation page. I've pointed it to Ancient history which is fairly relevant. Gary King  ( talk ) 01:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Just two examples of prose issues:
 * Oppose and suggest withdrawing Nowhere near 1a. Copyvio issues.
 * "Playing Age of Empires requires the development of a civilization" Playing...requires?
 * "Developed under the working title Dawn of Man,[17] Age of Empires was the first game developed by Ensemble Studios."
 * Copyvio from Postmortems from Game Developer Just one example, probably more:
 * "The files were then handed to a 2D specialist, who took the animation apart frame-by-frame and cleaned up each image with Photoshop.[17] The process involved sharpening detail and smoothing the edges of irregular shapes. However, since most of the sprites in Age of Empires has screen dimensions of around 20 to 100 pixels per unit or building, the visual quality improvement was considered significant.[17] The game was very well received at E3 1997, with the artists receiving numerous compliments on their work." Budding Journalist 22:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * On further investigation, looks like everything sourced to Postmortems is basically a copyvio. Have blanked the most egregious section (Development) and tagged with the copyvio template. Budding Journalist 22:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering how you managed to get the book, then I found the book on Google Books here, which is searchable. I found the text there, too. Gary King  ( talk ) 22:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy-close per copyvio issues. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy-close - per Julian. Sorry Eclipse... — Ed 17  (Talk /  Contribs)  01:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The situation here is trickier than a simple copyvio. I don't think anyone wants the entire article deleted ("Unless the copyright status of the text on this page is clarified, it will be deleted one week after the time of its listing.") One option would be to revert the article to before any copyrighted material was added, and delete all revisions that were made since then. Most, if not all, of the copyrighted material was added in this diff, and perhaps others after that. We need to delete revisions that contain the copyrighted material so that when people look at older revisions, they don't copy the copyrighted material back into the article's latest revision. In most cases, the situation is clearer for a single administrator to determine what to do, as often the problem is simply a new article that does not meet CSD but is a copyright violation. Thoughts? Gary King ( talk ) 01:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse speedy closure - what should be done with copyvios is beyond my scope in terms of reviewing, but it is clear it needs a substantial overhaul and rewrite. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't (and still) don't really expect this article to be a FA, just thought I'd give it a shot. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This nomination can be withdrawn. --EclipseSSD (talk) 16:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you didn't expect it to pass, why did you nominate it? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Eclipse, next time, bring an article to Peer Review first and perhaps notify some of the people who participated in this FAC so they can comment on your article before it hits FAC. Gary King  ( talk ) 17:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, thanks for the heads up. This isn't my first FA nomination, as those who's seen the 3 FA nominations for The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. I'll try to keep the part about bringing an article to PR first in mind. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.