Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diamond Trust of London/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 User:GrahamColm 00:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC).

Diamond Trust of London

 * Nominator(s): hahnch e n 21:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a video game article, but be not afeard! There are no monsters or aliens, you do not have to trudge through stupid convoluted plots or clichéd character profiles. It's a fairly short article about how one guy managed to manufacture and release a diamond smuggling game for the Nintendo DS. Instead of slaying dragons with your beard, you bribe UN inspectors with dirty money. This article is the most complete overview of the subject available. - hahnch e n 21:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - Fantastic! Comments have been resolved.  Now I'd say it's ready for FA status.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 14:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll return later with more comments. -- JDC808  ♫  04:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments by JDC808
 * 1) In the lead, you may consider merging the first two paragraphs.
 * 2) I've went through and done some copy-editing. You should seek someone else as well, preferably an experienced copy-editor.
 * I prefer the lead as is. I'm not sure if it needs the exact date of release in the lead, but I don't mind.  I've taken some of your changes on board, but also reverted and tweaked some others.  You can see the diff here, and the explanations in the article history. - hahnch e n 00:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I figured since there is only one release date, might as well put it there. Read through the article again and have no problem with the other stuff. Like I said earlier, you may want to find a copy-editor more experienced than myself to be on the safe side. With that being said, I Support as I don't see any major issues, or any that can't be easily taken care of. -- JDC808  ♫  05:59, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Crisco 1492
 * Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
 * Images are fine, see review on talk page.
 * Support on prose and images. Good read, interesting concept, wish I had a DS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done
 * Compare formatting of FNs 14 and 16
 * I see someone has raised the issue of WP:SPS above. It's fine for gameplay, but I feel it might still be a bit much in Development. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 14 is the main Kickstarter project page. 16 is an update on that project. Let me know if you have a better format. - hahnch e n 22:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by Hahc21
 * Support — ΛΧΣ  21  04:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Comments by DragonZero
 * I find the inline citations to be disorganized. An example would be the last sentence in the development section. Only the final source backs up that sentence, the other two did not. The sources should also be in numbered order so reorganize them.
 * I'm not sure if the structure for the reception is the best. The first paragraph is all the positive reception, followed by music reception (two sentences), then negative reception by the same reviewers of the positive reception. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 03:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I generally prefer my citations at the end of paragraphs rather than after every sentence or even in the middle of sentences, earlier versions of the article followed this even closer. The three references at the close of the development section are to show that he was packaging the units manually, the date of release, and an example's contents.
 * You could move the music paragraph down one, but I don't think it makes any difference. The general structure was gameplay-music-negatives-themes. - hahnch e n 21:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose, 1a. This prose is not up to FA standards—I found way too many simple grammatical errors. Some random pot-shots:
 * "It was published by indiePub, and following a Kickstarter campaign, was released for the Nintendo DS on August 28, 2012." This reads like it is meant to be chronological. It was published, then it had a Kickstarter campaign, then it was released?
 * Indiepub struck a publishing deal, but didn't have the funds for manufacturing. Rohrer launched a Kickstarter campaign for the manufacturing, and it was released in August 2012.  Despite having to crowdfund the manufacturing costs, Indiepub remained the publisher throughout. - hahnch e n 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Awkward: "played between two players"
 * "Set in 2000, before the implementation of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme to curb the blood diamond trade, the player's aim" The player's aim is set in 2000?
 * The whole thing is set in 2000. - hahnch e n 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "In order to extract the most diamonds and win, players resort to a combination of bribery and deception." The phrase "in order to" can almost always be replaced with simply "to"; the term "resorted" implies that other things are tried before finally "resorting" to what's stated. Is that accurate?
 * Removed all "in order to"s. You can play the game without deception and bribery, but you'll probably lose.  The reception section describes the gameplay as "one that encourages and maybe even requires misdeeds". - hahnch e n 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe link the term "crowdfunded". I'm not sure how colloquial it is yet, and whether it's made its way into global English.
 * I considered this when writing the article, but I assume that readers are more likely to click on the Kickstarter links and find out how the campaigns work. - hahnch e n 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Again the misplaced modifying phrase: "Set in 2000, the aim is to extract diamonds"
 * The whole thing is set in 2000. - hahnch e n 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another: "Consisting of nine turns, the winner is the one" The winner consists of nine turns?
 * "The winner is the one who finishes the game with the most diamonds after nine turns." - hahnch e n 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Another "in order to": "Competing agents can be bribed in order to reveal inside information"
 * Removed all "in order to"s. - hahnch e n 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please get someone to copyedit this. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, comments above. - hahnch e n 22:36, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fixes thus far, Hahnchen. Your responses to the items about modifying phrases indicate that you may not understand the underlying grammar—I encourage you to get an independent copyeditor. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.