Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion


 * 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 promoted 13:35, August 2, 2007.

ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion
Thanks to a helpful review from the Video Games Wikiproject, useful comments from visitors to the talk page, and helpful comments from an early good article nomination I am ready to submit the ESRB re-rating of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for featured article candidacy. I have rendered several quotations into summary prose, following the recommendations of that first CVG peer review, added images and split the lede following the GA nomination's recommendations, and improved the glosses for Snow and Bully following the comments of an Anon on the talk page. I will be glad to receive any further stylistic and compositional criticisms, as well as any other criticisms you would seek to submit in regards to this article. If this article is not up to par right now, I should hope it to be by the end of this nomination! Many thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. No apparent problems. --Lenin and McCarthy |  (Complain here) 21:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a few comments that I noticed. Per WP:MOS, there should be a right-aligned image at the start of the article, though it might be difficult with the subject matter. The section "retailer response" begins with "Later in the day", though it has no context. Publisher response begins similarly, with "Bethesda issued a response before the evening fell" being quite awkward. Also, references to Hot Coffee should not be called a debacle, as that sounds slightly POV-ish. It would be fine calling it a controversy, as that's what's in the title, though I would like to see a link to GTA:San Andreas prior to that. Contractions in the article (wouldn't, they'd) should be avoided. There seem to be a high ratio of quotes to prose, though given the fairly narrow scope of the article I think it is a good balance. I'm giving it a weak oppose, though with some minor fixes I'll gladly change it to a support. Good job with the article. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 01:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, Hurricanehink. I believe I have addressed everything that you have mentioned (I have moved the topless image to the top of the article, cleaned up the intro sentences on the sections you have mentioned, changed instances of "debacle" to "controversy", introduced an earlier link to HCMC, and removed contractions in the article's unquoted prose.) Thanks again! Geuiwogbil 03:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support, thanks. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support - Honestly, I'm impressed that you were able to make such a lengthy article on this narrow topic at all. It meets the criteria, and I doubt that much more could be included.--Danaman5 03:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose . The second paragraph of the "Publisher response" section is full of original research. I don't see any sources that state a direct relationship between the re-rating and financial losses. The Washington Post article has a quote from a person unrelated to the publisher who said, "pulling games and re-stickering them is an expensive process." The aforementioned paragraph uses this reference to source the following statement: "The rating controversy damaged Take-Two financially; the process of pulling the games from shelves and re-stickering them alone was expensive, far worse was the decline in Take-Two shares." Obviously the Post article does not back this up. It then goes on about the decline in Take-Two's shares, while no sources support the implied relationship between the re-rating and the decline, nor do they link the re-rating to future actions taken by Take-Two. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. --- RockMFR 03:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll get to work on that. I was misled by a CNN Money article, which, in retrospect, refered to the other re-rating. "Take Two was rightly criticized for the Hot Coffee debacle - and, in all honesty, probably got off easier than it should have. The long-term affect on the stock, though, was notable. Take Two (Research) shares closed at $27.07 the day of the ESRB re-rating. They're fallen nearly 40 percent since then." Geuiwogbil 03:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've cut the paragraph. It seems I misread the article; the shares did not drop 40% since the second re-rating. They dropped 40% since the first re-rating. The rest is, as you say, Original Research. Apologies. Geuiwogbil 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright. I've withdrawn my oppose. --- RockMFR 04:01, 30 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.