Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/BZFlag/archive1

BZFlag
I am nominating this article because it informs every aspect of the game, has a good amount of photos, tells a lot of references, and is well-written grammar and spelling wise. It does not leave readers still wondering about the game, and tells more than enough just to inform them about the current state of the game, or simply the game itself. It was on Peer Review for a week and turned up only one comment. This is a self-nomination as I wrote the majority of what is there. --Lan56 05:06, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Support I support on the condition the spelling mistakes are fixed (e.g. Theif, Rogue) Did you even read my message on peer review?. Excellent article. I used to play the game myself, but I quit because it was too addicting... Squash 11:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I just now read it, and have corrected a lot of the grammar, and the word "Thief" as well as many other spelling mistakes, however, the game uses the name "Rogue" exactly like that. I respect your comments, despite how I am a bit late towards seeing them. Thank you for pointing it out. --Lan56 00:39, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good job! Squash 02:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great article.  --L33tminion | (talk) 22:09, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support &rarr;mathx314(talk)(email) 22:16, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support I love articles like this! I thought I'd never heard of it before, but then when I saw the pictures it looked kinda familar. Support, anyway. Everyking 08:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Ta bu shi da yu 08:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Object. Good article, but not quite there yet. The "what it is" section could really do with a rename, and being placed above the history section. I'd also like to see a bit better coverage of the gameplay - it's hard to really wrap my head around what exactly this is. The translations section takes up more space than it needs to because of the bullet-style, rather than prose, list. It has a few overly small sections at the end, which could perhaps be merged somewhere else. Finally, larger pictures would be nice, and putting at least one of the gameplay-related ones at the top, rather than having the two title-images side by side - I had to dig to see what the game actually looks like. Ambi 09:13, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments, Ambi. I added several more photos, added and changed things in the former "What it is" section (which I renamed), and combined the small, bottom sections. I did not know what to do in regards to the Translations section, as if I were to put all the languages into a paragraph, it may look messy and unorganized, and it doesn't have enough for a table, therefore I just left it the way it is. I also rearranged the title pictures and replaced their spot with a screenshot. As for larger pictures, I took those screenshots as big as my monitor. I didn't scale them down, therfore I cannot make them any bigger. Or do you mean the thumbnail? As for the actual full-size image, they are as big as my monitor can take pictures of. Thank you very much for the tips, please tell me any improvements to make, should there be any in the future. --Lan56 10:10, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the effort. I haven't re-checked the article, because I just don't have the time to go through it properly, but I've crossed it out - I don't have the time for FAC matters at all at the moment. Ambi 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Abstain article is fine and full of good information but I don't think the writing and writing structure is great or remarkable, no offense though. The article focuses a lot on gameplay and the coverage of the project and development is too limited. I don't think it needs much more volume of material, but something about the development structure, pace, number of active developers, is there a lead developer, etc need to be covered. - Taxman 22:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I added a lot about development, per your suggestion, but the development strategy and attributes (from the way things are run to, especially, the amount of developers) is constantly changing, therefore I did not go heavily on things I know will change too often to keep a static article. --Lan56 05:23, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds quite reasonable to me. Now the list of flags, versions, and map objects seem out of place and trivia. They may be fine for a separate article to link to, but I think they need to be removed from this main article at least. - Taxman 22:59, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but I disagree on moving the flags, map objects, and versions table. I feel they are what makes up a significant portion of the article and make it seem complete, and are on topic entirely. It would seem difficult to create a new article and place all the above-stated tables there, and make a complete article out of it without just listing the tables, like storage space. This is simply my opinion, and I will respect any further objections/comments/etc... that you may have. --Lan56 03:31, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll still say the list of map objects is too detailed to be necessary. It is not bad information of course, but distracts enough from the flow of the overal article that its inclusion in the article costs more than its value. If you move it to list of BZFlag map objects, and link to it, there is no loss of information in the article, but the readability is improved. You don't have to feel like that subarticle needs to be fleshed out into a full article. It is just there to support the main article, which is perfectly acceptable. Though it doesn't seem important enough to continue objecting. - Taxman 20:15, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Object, though much of the structure and detail is good. Needs a lot of editing/proofreading.  The text isn't close to being great writing yet, and is distinctly confusing in places and ungrammatical in others, full of repetition and odd word choice.
 * Ex: This release took a new turn compared to older versions as a cheater inspired Schoneman and his friend (co-developer) to add "super-flags" -- a cheater? who is this friend?  (Schoneman is the only person listed as a developer in the article) plus a mixed metaphor.


 * The list of translations, and of team colors, should be inline in a single sentence. The table of versions by date along the side is definitely TMI, and the date-linking there isn't terribly useful (deep links to that month of that year might be better).
 * It would also be nice to see more comparisons of the game to similar games, and similar Open Source projects. +sj +  07:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I clarified many things, including your example from the History section. I will look over parts several times, and correct any future things I see. I also have grammar checked it using Microsoft Works (Windows XP), but I know I can't rely on this entirely, but it did correct a great deal. I also inlined the translations and team colors. I did link to the months in the versions table rather than the specific dates, but I extremely disagree in regards to removing it (as you mention it is too much information). I feel it is both a brilliant reference, and too much information is better than too little. I agree about comparing it to similar games, this would be a great thing, unfortunately, I do not know of any such games that I am familiar with enough (or even know a single thing about) to give a useful, educated section about it. I hate to say this, but I must hope that someone can cover this part. I sincerly apologize. --Lan56 05:26, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Great article.  Bart133 (t) 22:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)