Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Betrayal at Krondor/archive1

Betrayal at Krondor
It's a good article, no? Chris 17:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I loved this game, but the article has one reference, and nothing reliable.  The prose could use some work as well, and I'm concerned about comprehensiveness.  I suggest a peer review first. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Peer review has been requested. Chris 18:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My suggesiton is to polish the peer review first, perhaps show it to a few folks at the video game WikiProject, then take it back here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Virtually no references or inline citations. Only reference is to a forum posting, not a verifiable source. Phrases such as "Betrayal at Krondor is one of the most widely-played, critically-acclaimed, and commerically-successful RPGs from the early 1990s." are not backed up, and prose in some areas is relatively poor. It can't just be a "good article", it has to be an outstanding article in order to qualify as a featured article. CloudNine 18:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Backed up you say? It's plain fact that Krondor was, is and probably always will be, massively successful. Heck, Sierra made it freeware back in 1998. If that doesn't make it popular, I give up.Chris 18:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way: I say that citations are pointless, and detract from an article. I challenge badlydrawnjeff and CloudNine to provide counter-arguments. Cheers. Chris
 * If by citations you mean references, then yes, these are vital. How else can we verify the information presented in the article? CloudNine 21:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, why is it important to have citations and/or references? I don't think they're at all vital. The very fact that a Wikipedia article remains in its present condition shows that it's reached a level of consensus, i.e. verification. I think the only way that you could argue otherwise is to say that not many people visit a given Wikipedian site. Do you suppose that few people have checked out our Betrayal at Krondor page? If so, I will shut up. Chris 21:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, it only means the article has not received enough attention.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I strongly suggest that the nominator reads WP:REF and check out some existing Featured Articles.   If you don't think references/citations are vital, you'll never get this up to a B article, not to mention Featured.  Wickethewok 22:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I'm sorry that you feel that citations are ugly- but they're the only way to prove that the article isn't all lies. If I wanted to say that BaK was a mediocre game that got little attention in the gaming world, frankly my opinion (as obviously wrong as it would be) is just as correct as yours, that it's a great, well-received game.  Without citations, all of the information, right or wrong, is just some editor's opinion.  It has to be proven that it's a fact, whether that means little numbers strewn throughout the article or not.  (Disclaimer- I never played the game, and the fake opinion up there is not my own) --PresN 22:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well stated. Also, I didn't mean to be overly harsh in my above "oppose", its just that cites/refs are something quite necessary to building a non-expert reviewed encyclopedia.  Wickethewok 00:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Peer review is here. Gzkn 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. And no, it's not even a good article yet, and without inline citations will not be.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism and disruption. Gzkn 06:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Has anyone here ever read Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four? Just because 'facts' are attributed and repeated in numerous sources, it doesn't mean they are any less prone to error, lies, misinterpretation, simply being wrong etc etc etc.


 * Also, a quote from Old Ben Kenobi: "You'll find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on a certain point of view." :)  Vangran
 * If you want to never trust anything or anyone, go right ahead. Wikipedia prefers to trust established sources over semi-anonymous editors.  If you don't think that 'facts' exist, why are you editing an encyclopledia?  --PresN 17:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A fair query! However, as I detect a strong undercurrent of Christian nihilism in your answer, I am quite certain that I would be unable to give you a satisfactory answer. Suffice to say, I believe more in consensus that elitism. Have you ever heard the term ivory tower? It is my experience that a lot of Wiki's adminstrators have a great respect for everything to come out of ivory towers, whether or not such knowledge is to the greater benefit of humanity. Have you read much Nietzsche ever? If not, I very much doubt we could even begin to agree on what 'truth' or 'benefit to humanity' means. Cheers -- Vangran
 * This discussion is out of place here, so we should take it to talk pages if you want to continue (though, no, I haven't read Nietzsche), but I feel that Wikipedia is a reservior for facts that are true, not for 'facts' that are of benefit to mankind. To say that you can determine what is of the greatest benefit to mankind is far more elitist than saying we can determine what is true.  --PresN 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To relate it to the subject at hand, however, I don't see how not citing sources makes the article more beneficial, though it certainly leaves it open to being less true. --PresN 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)