Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Mythology/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 15:55, 26 July 2007.

Age of Mythology
Self nomination - this article recently passed GA, and I believe it meets the FA criteria too. It's been peer reviewed by the video games peer review, and there has been a good deal of WikiProject collaboration on it.

I'd be more then happy to make any changes suggested to the article. Thanks for considering it, Giggy  UCP 01:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments - I've only had a brief look over it and will have a proper read later, but at the moment I have a few questions/comments:
 * Are their any images that can be found that are not going to be copyright? For example do people play this game in competitions, or at LAN parties or whatever? (sorry am not very familiar with all that) If so then a photo of a large group of people playing in a tournament or something would add significantly to the article. ✅
 * Some sections of the article have no inline citations, is there a reason for this?
 * I believe the reception section should be expanded. It's not comprehensive enough for my liking. Surely more could be said about it's sales, criticism (good and bad) and awards?
 * Thanks. - Shudde   talk  04:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments Shudde. I'm going to look for a non copyright photo, or otherwise attempt to take on myself.  I'll also get to the citations when I get the chance, although I don't think there are any statements that need sources but don't have one. Thanks again for your critique,  Giggy  UCP 04:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Great work on the article so far, Giggy! Here are some comments: Recurring dreams 07:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Needs copyediting for grammar and spelling, eg then vs than ✅
 * Some of the expression needs to be fixed, eg the opening sentence of the Gameplay section is too choppy, use if i.e. and etc. in the buildings section, ...
 * Could you clarify on your comments re. the buildings section? Giggy  UCP
 * The wikilinks for the four ages are a tad misleading, as they don't really correspond to their linked articles (I think the terms in the game are more fictional than historic). In particular the classical age links to a disambiguation page ✅ - Links removed (except Archaic Age, which is historically relevant)
 * Likewise the wiktionary link for "favor" doesn't really explain its meaning and role within the context of the game. Is explained later though. Perhaps remove wiktionary link? ✅ - Link removed
 * If my memory serves me correctly civilians can also fish with nets, along with fishing boats? Nope, not true :D. That was in Age of Empires and Age of Empires II!
 * Why is "Isis is considered the best Egyptian major god?" Citation? Comment removed. Not cited anywhere, just a popular multiplayer statement that made its way in there.
 * Need to wlink "Set" earlier ✅
 * Each civilization has a finite number of "population slots;" which can be raised by building more houses and Town Centers. Fix grammar. ✅
 * The units section needs more explanation added. What's an "attack bonus", or "pierce damage"? ✅
 * What's the point of the picture of the players at the tournament? No text refering to any tournaments. ✅
 * There probably needs to be more explanation of the different game modes, eg capture the flag, timed games, wonder games. ✅
 * Oppose - Nearly every nonfree image used in the article (and there are several) have the same copy-pasted fair-use rationale - that the image is used for "illustration and identification." Each image needs to be justified by significant critical commentary, and that needs to be explained on the images' description pages. If you can't come up with a good way to justify them, then the image should be deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Will get to this ASAP. Giggy  UCP 01:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just about ✅ – not too sure if it is good enough, but I added proper fair-use rationals, proper description of the image and why the image constitutes fair-use in the article other than just "no free alternative" or "informative purposes". Sebi  &#91; talk &#93; 09:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll read the article when I can. In the meanwhile, automated peer review brings up the following:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
 * Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
 * There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
 * is considered ✅
 * might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

I'll give more "human" suggestions ASAP. · AndonicO Talk 00:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'd like the suggestions I left on your talk page to be taken care of before I can support. For the sake of understanding and centralized discussion, I will summarize them here. After this and other problems are taken care of, I'll support. Clyde (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Passive voice should be active voice ("the person is fighting" becomes "the person fights" etc.) ✅ as far as I can see
 * Look in civilizations; there's a "you". ✅
 * Try to add the work and the publisher. Usually involves CNET and one of the websites it it owns. ✅ (As best I could, anyway)
 * Try to flesh out development and reception. ✅ -

Comment: Aside from the issues above I would like justification and likely an eventual cutting down of the gameplay section. As it stands the list-alike section goes extensively into irrelevant aspects of the game such as "In Age of Mythology, most cavalry receive an attack bonus against archers" which do not help the reader get a general overview of the information surrounding the game. Summary style applies to what I have just said and as such I feel the article fails this important MoS guideline. There are a lot of featured video game articles such as the recent Supreme Commander that can be used as examples and inspirations. 74.13.94.166 02:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This article is not up to standard. I feel that the gameplay mechanics reaches down to too low level, at some points it reads like a game guide.  Aesthetically, I think that section could be improved with some boldening of unit classes, although whether you feel that it'd make it too listy is your call.  The article is not comprehensive, there was an Age of Mythology soundtrack that was released, so the audio work was definitely a key part of this title, yet there is no mention of it other than some passing mutterings in the reception section.  Here are some relevant links:    .  I don't like the feel of the reception section at all, summarising just three sources is not good enough.  Instead, it should try and touch upon and flow through all aspects of the game and use multiple sources to back that up, it's useful to link to aggregation sites such as Metacritic or Gamerankings. - hahnch e n 15:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry the lack of boldening is my fault. I thought it was encouraging to break up the flow of the section, and encouraged listy cruft. However, if you think it will help the article, let's see how it looks.--Clyde (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I wasn't aware of a soundtrack, thanks for pointing that out. I've added information about it. .  As for the boldening, I agree with Clyde.  Giggy  UCP 23:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And I also added information concerning Metacritic and Game Rankings. Thanks for your comments!   Giggy  UCP 23:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This still does not satisfy my concerns. I don't want to sound like an elitist bastard (I am), but I'm surprised you've chosen Avalanche Online as your sole source for a review, which seems to be pretty amateurish and more of a forum than anything else, especially given that I linked to Music4Games which is probably the most dedicated and professional news source on video game audio.  I don't like the style of the reception section, giving a synopsis of three reviews is not significant enough, and I feel that the flow of the prose is totally shattered by a fetish for review scores.  Whereas I don't mind a smattering of scores in the prose, I think it's totally unnecessary to list the score breakdown for each review criteria, the GameSpot synopsis just focuses on numbers.  I'd much prefer a run through of how well the various aspects of the game were received by a wider range of sources, rather than the entire game's reception by a small number.  In relation to the layout of the units, I would prefer if it was just a list, because it already reads like one and would be more elegant if chopped and formalised into a list.  Another minor point are the image resolutions.  I'm sure that quite a few images could be non-free reduced, I'm no fair use fascist and won't insist on making images so tiny that you can't make anything out, but Image:Age of Mythology ingame screenshot.jpg, Image:AoMGreekScreenie.jpg, Image:Age of Mythology Editor.png and Image:Age of Mythology Liner.jpg are worth checking out, I'd stick to 800x600 maximums when dealing with screenshots, but it's hard to balance out showing the graphical prowess of the game and Wikipedia's fair use restrictions. - hahnch e n 00:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think that the bonus 4 mission campaign by Ensemble, Age of Mythology - Golden Gift should get a mention. - hahnch e n 01:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Numerous problems:
 * The second sentence is WAY too wordy: rephrase to "...in North America '''and a week later in Europe."
 * In the second paragraph of the lead, there is an unreferenced claim, "Age of Mythology is the first "Age of" game to utilise a 3D graphics engine, allowing rotation of the map". IAW WP:MoS, this also needs to be referenced later in the article and IMHO expanded upon.
 * The third paragraph needs only one reference at the end of the paragraph for both sentences.
 * Paragraph four is never referenced or expanded upon in the main article and should either be fixed or deleted from the lead. It also needs to be rewritten IAW WP:DATE (either include the exact date, which would be preferable, or un-wikilink September, unless it is somehow important to the article).
 * Problems throughout include multiple uses of numbers when they should be spelled out (there are quite a few). Well-known is highly subjective (and in any case should be hyphenated), but should not be used in an encyclopedia.
 * Awkward/choppy phrasing throughout, example: "Minor gods are slightly less significant gods (according to history) such as Bast and Hel. All gods have unique technologies, myth units, and a unique god power. God powers are special one-time use abilities that can massively damage an opponent, or can benefit the player. For instance, if a player chooses the minor god Thoth in the mythic age, they can summon down a barrage of meteors to destroy opposing civilizations. Or, if the player choose Hephaestus, the player can create a Plenty Vault, which provides a steady trickle of resources; however control of the vault can be taken away if another player has more units and buildings around it." ...and while we're on the subject, this is not "according to history," it is according to mythology and this is WAY too detailed without definitions of what a "Plenty Vault" is, looks like, how the opposing entities can actually take control of it, etc. In short, keep it simple...much simpler than this.
 * The Favor section is awful, choppy, and not very descriptive. Rephrase/reword/significantl upgrade.
 * Now the biggies:
 * Passive voice throughout: example: "Food, wood, and gold are also gathered by villagers" should be "Villagers gather food, wood..." (In addition, this sentence is very short). In short, anything that has the word "by" in it is likely passive voice. Read this for more information.
 * Citations missing for many paragraphs with specific claims including numbers. If you plan to keep these, please give us some reference.
 * ALL dates need to be wikified, including the references. Please fix

In short, there are so many problems, I don't have time to list them all (I am not going to waste 4 hours on something that will not pass FAC review in its current form). Should all of these problems be handled, I will be happy to come back and clarify some more. — BQZip01 — talk 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments - The article is in good shape; it just needs a few things clarified:
 * The Gods sections needs some cleanup; it almost seems like it was thrown in there. It could be a little bit better written.
 * "Age of Mythology’s gameplay differs from that of other real-time strategy games in that players are able to choose gods for their civilization to follow." what other games do/do not do this?
 * "Each major god possesses a major god power, which is a powerful piece of “magic” the player can summon once in the game." could be "Major gods posses their own accompanying power. Each one is unique in the way it is dealt, but generally extremely destructive and can only be used once in the game."
 * The Favor section should be rewritten, as it has an overall colloquial tone.
 * "Age of Mythology was granted a score of 9.2 by GameSpot reviewer Greg Kasavin..." should be "Gamespot's Greg Kasavin gave the game a 9.2 out of 10; gameplay was ranked 9 out of 10, with Kasavin stating that "you'll get the impression from Age of Mythology that the designers spent their time further adjusting the gameplay conventions that they themselves have already helped pioneer."
 * A copy edit should be conducted (by fresh eyes). You may wish to contact the League of Copyeditors.

Once the outline above is addressed, I'd love change my position to support. NSR 77 T C  22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The first 2/3rd's is just a rehash of what happens in the game, units, etc. It's like an instruction manual - that's not what an encyclopedia is for. From "Development" on is relevant and encyclopedic and seems well sourced. But that is only 1/3 of the article though. It is a great game though. --Merbabu 15:26, 25 July 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.