Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Empires: Dawn of the Modern World/archive1

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World
Self Nomination. I've been working on this article for three months now, and I think it is finally ready to be a Featured Article. It has already gone through one peer review and is wrapping up another one, and has received the advice from some of the finest editors in their field. I think it is an excellent example of a video game article, and deserves featured status.--Clyde Miller 00:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support, I like it and although I'm not a big fan of the game I find this article is well-expressed, has references and good images. Congratulations for your effort!--Gustavo86 03:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Footnotes go at the end of sentence after the full stop, not after commas. Dev920 (Tory?) 08:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Taken care of, but it looks a little weird in compound sentences where each half of the sentence had it's own citation. Should I move them back or keep as is?--Clyde Miller 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal preference would be to have some footnotes after commas where it amkes sense. I don't think that there is any rule which states that they never should be after commas. It is just that in most cases it is better to have them after the end of the sentence. Jeltz talk  17:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The only place I was really looking at was the reception, where two different critics are quoted in the same sentence at different parts. Should both of these citations be at the end of the sentence? I'm not sure.--Clyde Miller 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think if two critics are quoted in the same sentence the citation for each should come after the end of that quote (after a comma preferably). Footnotes should preferably be at the end of the sentences but not always. --kingboyk 12:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay I moved some of the citations back to the commas. Is this okay?--Clyde Miller 14:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks, okay to me. Jeltz talk  19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I read through the article again to make sure it was up to standards, and sure enough, it was. While there are still a few minor issues, the overall article is well-written, well-sourced and comprehensive (though short, due to the lack of information about the subject matter). Great work. JimmyBlackwing 10:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't like the first image you've chosen of many villagers surrounding a couple of trees. It's extremely unclear and I think it is unnecessary to the article. The fact resources deplete does not need a screenshot. I'd prefer a more "normal" screenshot of some standard gameplay - perhaps a battle within a town. I'd also prefer at least one of the screenshots to be viewing the game from the "normal" overhead RTS view, rather than zoomed and pitched in, as it can give the reader a very inaccurate idea of the game. — Abraham Lure 11:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll start working on getting a good battle pic from normal zoom. Did you want something like this?--Clyde Miller 14:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. :) It gives a much more realistic impression of the game.— Abraham Lure 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. What do you think now?--Clyde Miller 19:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally looks great. I think the Gameplay section concentrates too much on Victory Conditions. Perhaps you could mention that you build a variety of military units, each with specific strengths and weaknesses which give units advantages and disadvantages against other military units. Here you could use an example, saying, for example, that archers are particularly effective against longswordsmen (I don't know if that's true, it's been too long since I've played). Also mention the existence of land, air as well as sea units. I believe there are also two modes of play - "Empire Builder" and another which I've forgotten. These and their differences should be mentioned. Essentially, I think it would be better if you went into more depth about the gameplay and how the game is played - are maps randomly generated? how exactly do the resources work? You're quite vague there - you should mention that resources are stockpiled and then are then used to construct buildings, train units and advance an epoch. "Each is used in a variety of ways, and must be totally utilized to achieve victory" is simply too vague. Others might disagree and think it's "manual material", but I think it's possible to write it so that's not the case. — Abraham Lure 23:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay I'll add the game modes, more about resources, that there's three different types of units, and the more about the ups and downs of units. However, I already did this once, took it too far, made it a different article, had a no consensus AFD, had someone redirect the whole artice, then moved it onto strategy wiki. So you'll forgive me if I air on the side of caution with adding more about gameplay.--Clyde Miller 14:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm done adding more to the gameplay section. Thoughts?--Clyde Miller 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for going into more depth. There are still a few problems. It should be mentioned that the gameplay is typical to the RTS genre, for instance. This sentence needs fixing: "Each unit uniquely attacks other units, necessitating the creation of a variety of units." - I think you are trying to say units have advantages and disadvantages against certain other units in rock-paper-scissors type way, but what you've actually said is odd and irrelevant - that units can attack[fullstop]. Also, if I were being picky, the prose is a little substandard with a lot of choppy sentences and abrupt changes of subject without paragraphing. I'm not too experienced in these matters though, so I'll let others critique or wave through your work.— Abraham Lure 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As to your first suggestion, I'll do my best to fix the vagueness (is that a word?) of the Rock Papaer scissors section ASAP. As to your second suggestion, I am not an expert either, so I don't really know where to look for choppy sentences. I'll look for flow problems anyway as soon as I get a chance.--Clyde Miller 02:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On an interesting note, I had included the rock paper scissors idea in the article until August 4 under ages. I guess I'll add it back in.--Clyde Miller 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a bit more to clarify the variety of units and rock papaer scissors part, and I thought I'd mention that the sentence in question is explaining that a variety of units should be used in the game, not that it is in a rock paper scissors format. Anyway, what do you think?--Clyde Miller 18:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Much better now. Thanks for making the alterations. I have no problem with the article anymore.— Abraham Lure 23:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. I like what I read, and Clyde has done a good job with a relatively obscure game. Although I think the 2 in-game screenshots are a bit big and need to be reduced for fair use criteria. Thunderbrand 20:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I made both of the images smaller so neither excedes 500 px in either direction. Is this Okay?--Clyde Miller 22:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that is fine. Thunderbrand 02:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

AnonEMouse comments
AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, needs work. Changed to support per extensive work below. (Also conditional on fixing my remaining two points, but they should be easy enough considering how much has been done already.) I hear you're not getting enough opinions here - OK, then - don't forget you asked for this! :-).
 * "The game features seven different nations: England, Franks, Korea and China, which are playable from the Medieval Age up to the Imperial Age, and the United States, Russia, Germany, France and the United Kingdom," ... you really need to say something about the seeming duplication here. What are the relationships between England and UK, Franks and France? Can they exist at the same time, and fight each other? Does one become the other? Why so confusing? Surely some source somewhere wrote about this.
 * I found this in the form of an instruction manual thing that was included with the game. I added onto the gameplay section, and covered several problems including this one. Any way to further improve it?
 * Much better, I go into specific comments in the below section.
 * "Admiral Yi's campaign takes place in the 1590s, and chronicles Korea's battles with Manchurians and the Japanese." But there is no Japanese nation, how is that?
 * Done. What do you think?
 * Good, you explained it. By the way, the article doesn't actually explain what the differences between nations are, presumably there are some? Do the Japanese, like playable nations, get special units that other nations don't?
 * Unfortunately I'm unable to see the stats and special abilities (if they exist) of the Japanese. This is simply becuase you can't play as them. Furthermore, because they are not a playable civilization, no source has anything about them in the civilization section.
 * "Although General Patton is the main leader in the campaign, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Franklin Delano Roosevelt also appear in it." In what sense? Roosevelt in his wheelchair storms the beaches of Normandy? Same for the other leaders - what do they do, what good are they? Individual combat units on the map, or a nebulous presence, +5 to some ability, and a cool screenshot?
 * Done. What do you think?
 * Well explained, good.
 * You give extensive critical reaction, but how well did the whole thing sell? Commercial success, failure? How did it compare to similar games?
 * I'm kinda dead here. I'll talk to some people and keep looking though.
 * This isn't a really popular game, so there isn't anything about number of units sold. I looked everywhere and asked some people. There just isn't anything on it. Sorry.
 * All right, I'll accept that.
 * "The final complaint of critics was" - surely not, critics are never done complaining! :-)
 * Fixed. What do you think?
 * Is is still played? Again, compare to Age of Empires, and others.
 * The game is still played, but I can't compare it to any other historical game because I don't own any other historical game. What should I do?
 * I wasn't actually asking you to go and play the games yourself and compare, that would be original research. Instead, can you look for a magazine review or two that compares DotMW with AoE or some of the other games (you've got a big list of similar games right in the infoboxes at the end of the article!), and add a couple of sentences on what those reviews say? Does one cost more, does one have a smarter AI, does one have larger maps, worse voices, fewer scenarios, faster play, more interesting unit options, take more disk space, have more bugs? That sort of thing. Again, don't decide this yourself, but do report what reviewers say - there are probably some comparative reviews like that out there.
 * This is sort of the same problem I have with the units sold thing. Empires isn't really popular game, but I'm still looking through reviews.
 * Here, I found some comparative reviews for you, though I won't do all the work. :-). Some compare it with Rise of Nations:  and others that compare it to its predecessor, Empire Earth,   , and a bit of everything
 * Well the long awaited paragragh is in place. Should it get its own ==section== or ===section=== or should I leave it, and does there still need improvement?
 * Yes, I'm afraid it does still need improvement - mostly minor, but a lot of it for a short paragraph.
 * 1) CNET is normally capitalized, not lowercase ("cnet Reviews")
 * taken care of
 * 1) "not ed"?
 * taken care of
 * 1) "the difference between Empire Earth" - maybe from?
 * taken care of
 * 1) What was that difference, again? Just the tighter focus, or something else?
 * Well I thought reduced gameplay and tighter focus was the differences, but you elude that I'm missing something. Did you want me to mention that there are less civilizations and less ages?
 * Good enough.
 * 1) "the gameplay Empires was" - maybe "gameplay in" ?
 * taken care of
 * Nope, still seems to be there.
 * done.
 * 1) What is a "more reduced game style"?
 * more reduced playing sytle means that Empire Earth was tons of ages and tons of civilizations but Empires was only a few ages and nine civilizations.
 * OK, now I understand, but you need to write that in the article, so other readers do as well. One sentence should do, but please be careful with the grammar and spelling of the new sentence!
 * fixed up. Good?
 * Better, but now self-referential and redundant. Here are the three sentences: "Many were surprised by the difference from Empire Earth, but agreed that the gameplay in Empires was more focused, as well as the ages and campaigns.[33][34] The result was a more reduced game style that was more focused on specific time periods. The reduced game style was referring to Empire Earth having several more civilizations and many more ages then Empires." You introduce the words "reduced game style" that you then have to explain. How about just using the explanation? Something like: "Many were surprised by the difference from the greater scope of Empire Earth, but agreed that the gameplay in Empires was more focused on specific time periods by having fewer ages and civilizations.[33][34]" I think that says the same information in only one sentence.
 * fixed.
 * 1) "Many of aspects" - "the aspects"?
 * I can't find this sentence, so I guess it was deleted. taken care of (I think)
 * 1) When you write "The game was compared unfavorably to Rise of Nations" the next sentence doesn't need to start "Many of aspects of Empires were also compared to Rise of Nations" - that's redundant.
 * taken care of
 * 1) "Stratos Group said that" - probably want "wrote".
 * taken care of
 * 1) "They also compared age progression of the two" - "...the age progression..."
 * taken care of
 * "comapared" shouldn't have that many as.
 * Fixed
 * 1) Last Stratos quote is missing a closing quotation mark.
 * taken care of
 * "The multiplayer is powered by GameSpy" - presumably you mean "multiplayer version" or something
 * Done. What do you think?
 * Last paragraph of "Gameplay" section has no coherent flow or theme - the mention of clans goes directly into the mention of civilization "break down"
 * Done. What do you think?
 * Still seems like cramming a bunch of unrelated ideas into one paragraph, sorry.
 * I split this into another paragrapgh and added quite a bit. Is the flow still poor? I'll keep working on it of course.
 * Much better, thanks.
 * It's a computer game. For what computers? Windows only? Which Windows? Any ports to other systems - Mac, Unix, Linux? Why or why not? This is sort of mentioned in a word in the info box, but a sentence could be worthwhile.
 * I didn't add a sentence, but I added more about the Windows it is available on in the infobox. Thoughts?
 * Good enough, I guess. Don't any of the articles or reviews ask "why isn't this available for Mac or Linux"? But if not, no big deal.
 * "Most reviews gave it about eight out of ten." This sentence can be deleted without loss of useful information. What is "most"? Surely not all reviews grade 1-10, and even those that do, some give mostly 5s while others give mostly 8s, so an 8 out of context doesn't mean anything.
 * Removed.
 * Err - it's still in the lead, actually: "most scoring the game an eight-out-of-ten".
 * My bad. Okey-e-doke that one is gone too. Any ideas how to make my word choice replacement suck less would be apprciated.
 * Good enough.
 * "Other critics, such as PC Gamer, cited below average voice acting and careless pathfinding, saying "The unit formations are crummy and pathfinding is just as tenuous as in most RTS games ... and the missions are somewhat undercut by ... terrible voice-acting."[28] Write either the paraphrase or the quote, not both, please. There are several redundancies like this. "Jane Doe said XYZ, in the following quote where she said 'XYZ'".
 * Taken Care of.
 * Good.
 * "we need to do a better job answering the question, 'What do gamers want?'" So, what did gamers want?
 * Uh....Isn't that question answered with the part of the civilization tree? I'm sorry if I sound stupid, but I don't really know where to find a source about "what gamers want" regarding Empires
 * That's a quote you wrote from a designer interview. From reading that quote, my immediate reaction was wanting to know what exactly the games asked the designer for, and what he gave them. I imagine other readers will want to know the same thing, so you probably want to either tell them, or not pique their interest this way. Do you know the joke about "How do you keep a moron in suspense?" Someone promised to tell me the answer a long time ago, but never did... :-)
 * Um I added a sentence to answer this as best I could, but in the interview Rick Goodman says "What do Gamers Want?" then moved on to other stuff. However, he somewhat answered the question, and I stuck that in. Good?
 * Good enough.
 * "a chart showing every civilization from every time period" Really? Australopithecines? Bushmen?
 * Clarified. Thoughts?
 * OK.
 * "The game was developed on an upgraded version the "Titan" engine" - missing "of" or something
 * Fixed.
 * "which is during the epochs World War I and World War II." What's an epoch? What good is it?
 * I didn't think it was necessary to talk about epochs since it has a link, but I'll add something if you think it will clarify the article.
 * I'm not asking what World War I was, the link will answer that -- I'm asking what effect it has on the game. Presumably you get access to new and more powerful units - write that. Probably don't want to list them all, but may want to give a few definitive examples. Do you also lose access to older ones? Do all or some units suddenly get upgraded during play, do you merely get the opportunity to buy new ones, or do changes of epoch only happen between scenarios? Does an epoch happen for all sides at the same time, or is it possible for one player to "advance to another epoch" before the others, that way gaining an advantage? Do epochs come automatically, without you doing anything, or do you have to spend resources or build specific things to advance into them? Etc.
 * Added a paragrapgh that covered many problems including this one. Further improvements?
 * Good.
 * Compared to other games, how much autonomy do the units have? If you, the player, are busy in the northwest, while your southeast gets attacked, do the there units fight back intelligently, defend themselves, run away, just stand there and get slaughtered? Do you give orders to individual units, groups you draw with the mouse each time, or formal formations that you set up once that then stick together?
 * Good enough, I guess.
 * Do the scenarios reflect real world geography, or all on abstract maps?
 * I don't understand the question. Some of the maps (like campaign ones) are realistic, but all multiplayer maps are randomly generated. Is that what you wanted me to add?
 * This is part of the scale question - with one soldier per unit, you probably don't get to where the map represents a country, or even a province, more like a township, I guess. The question would mean more if the forces on each side were armies of tens of thousands, rathr than a few tens or hundreds. By the way, you probably do want to add one sentence about that somewhere, about how many units the game lets you control at the same time 10? 50? 100? 500? more?
 * Well the maps can get pretty large, considering the pop cap for the game is 80,000 divided up between each player (I.E. 8 players each get 10,000 units). I got rid of the representation part because nowhere in the game or in any source does it say that one unit is one soilder. However, I added the part you were asking about. Is this what you were looking for?
 * Sorry, I don't see where you added that. A sentence with numbers like that would be very good, please put it in. I noticed several reviews said the maps were large, even though I was just skimming casually, it must be important.
 * Wow I must really be spacey. I think that's added now. Better?
 * Good ... except "poplulation" doesn't have that many ls. :-)
 * How large is the scale - is one unit representing one person, one squad, one company, one division? Does this have an effect on movement speeds, weapon ranges?
 * Clarified.
 * "soilder". Also, I imagine that means that ranges aren't realistic - or can artillery units after WWI or so basically hit anything on the map?
 * This is impossible to do since there is no reference saying the scale, so I removed it. I have no idea about scales, and I don't think anyone else knows either, critic or otherwise.
 * Yeah sorry about that my spelling pretty much totally sucks. I'll work on the ranges, although I don't know real artillary ranges, but I'll look it up.
 * Wait the game doesn't go any farther than WWII. Plus, there's nothing on ranges. Is this okay?
 * OK, OK.
 * What was wrong with Empire Earth that they needed to put out this new game?
 * I suppose cite an Empire Earth game review of what they did bad?
 * Look through and cite some articles from the comparative reviews list I gave, above.
 * See above comment in comparing paragragh section.


 * Damn. (bad use of word)


 * I've copied the suggestions to my sandbox and I'll start working on it as soon as possible.--Clyde Miller 00:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I may have overdone it a bit. Don't take it hard, and don't feel you have to answer every one of these points. I will still change to support if you fix the obvious things, and give a good shot at answering most of the more vague points. I can understand if you don't want to answer all of them, for fear of turning the article into a game guide, and can similarly understand if you won't be able to find answers for a few. AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's cool. I was saying more like wow then dang it with my opening "interjection". I'm not sure how you read that. I'll really try to fix these points though because if you don't bring them up, someone inveitably will. The game guide thingy is a thin line I've walked before, so I'll drop a reply regarding all of them when I'm finished.--Clyde Miller 03:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply: This is my first round of replies and questions to the problems. See above. If there is something without a response, it means I'm still working on it.--Clyde Miller 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Round 3 is it now? see above.--Clyde Miller 03:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Round 3
OK, you've addressed most of the issues there, yet others have cropped up, I'm afraid. However there are fewer of them, if you're looking for something positive. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Although units change over the ages, the pathfinding does not." This seems to be the first time you're using the term pathfinding, without explanation of what it is. Does this have something to do with the "When moving from point A to point B" sentence? If so, maybe you should place them close together?
 * Same sentence.
 * Better, see blob together, below.
 * "aggresive" needs another s.
 * Fixed
 * "Unit formations are also possible to help eliminate the crowding problem, but can be dissolved at any time." What crowding problem? Unless I missed it, again this seems to be the first time you're mentioning this.
 * Oh I had already mentioned that in the form of "blob together." Do you want me to clarify that or something?
 * It's not obvious that "blob together" means the same thing as "crowding problem". (In fact, it's not really that clear what "blob together" means at all.) If the first sentence had said something like "tend to blob together, forming an unorganized tightly packed crowd" it would be more clear. If you can find a source, it may also be useful to write a sentence on what exactly is wrong with being a blob... perhaps "which is not good at engaging more dispersed units and more vulnerable to area effect weapons?"
 * I kinda fixed the sentence, but I haven't had time to see if what you wanted source wise exists. I'll look as soon as I get time.
 * I found the source and added to it. Is this what you wanted?
 * Good, but a bit of redundancy in these sentences: "Unit formations can be used to eliminate the crowding problem, but can be dissolved at any time. Formations can also be helpful, and are important in battle ..." How about: "Unit formations can be used to eliminate the crowding problem, and are important in battle ..." then a short "Formations can be dissolved at any time." as a separate sentence?
 * I went by your suggestion. Is this what you were looking for?
 * Good enough.
 * "The resources of Empires break down into food, wood, gold, stone." In other words they start out as something else then decompose into food and gold? Or "There are four kinds of resources in Empires:..."
 * Fixed
 * In my experience, lists in sentence forms are typically written as "are W,X,Y and Z" not just "are W,X,Y,Z". But I guess it's not strictly forbidden.
 * I reworded it. Better?
 * Better.
 * "Each is used in a variety of ways, and must be totally utilized to achieve victory" Totally utilized meaning completely used up? In other words, you can't win if you have any wood left? Or is this supposed to be "you really should know how to use your wood if you want to win"? If the latter, we can probably do without this sentence - of course, the more you know about using all aspects of the game, the easier it is to win, but surely the same holds true about using the map, unit formations, deciding what units to build, where to attack, etc.
 * Fixed.
 * "Each ... play". Quantity mismatch there. I suggest just merging with the previous sentence, something like "... and stone, each of which plays an important role..."
 * I tried to fix that up a bit. Up to standards or more work?
 * Eh. I really want to say yes, but now it's two sentences stuck together. I'd recommend either a period or at least a semicolon after stone to separate them. It's not a big deal, I'm not going to oppose over it.
 * Eh I fixed it anyway.
 * "On the same principle, the concept of any two civilizations fighting each other, even if they are from two different time periods, is possible. Since each civilization is limited to becoming certain civilizations once it reaches the World War I age,[14] the idea that every civilization can fight every other civilization is highly unlikely." You seem to be advancing an idea in the first sentence then immediately shooting it down in the next. Rephrase, please - maybe something like "Though in principle any combination of civs can coexist and compete, in practice, since each is limited ...".
 * I fixed it up a bit. Is this what you were looking for?
 * Ouch. I can't read that sentence at all, sorry. "Though in principle any combination of civilizations can coexist and compete, in practice, since each is limited to only certain civilizations available in the World War I age,[14], it is unlikely." Can you rewrite? Also, you want ",ref" or ".ref" not ",ref,".
 * Sorry I was tired when I wrote that. I tried to reword it, but not dumb it down, cause I think that's against policy somewhere. Is this what you were looking for?
 * May I suggest shortening? Rather than: "On the same principle, the concept of any two civilizations fighting each other, even if they are from two different time periods, is possible. Though in principle any combination of civilizations can coexist and compete, in practice, this is unlikely since only certain new civilizations are available to early civilizations" change to "This way, in principle, any two civilizations can fight each other, even if they are from two different time periods. In practice, this is unlikely. Only certain new civs..." Seems to say the same thing in fewer words.
 * I used your idea and rewrote it. Good?
 * Good.
 * New issue: "Civilizations in Empires break down into nine groups." They're not really "groups" are they? How about: "There are nine civilizations in Empires."?
 * Fixed.
 * Yes.
 * "All new upgrades cost different combinations of resources, and can do anything from improving fishing rate to upgrading a spearmen to more modern technology.[7] Once this change occurs, old spearmen can no longer be created." Probably want "older unit types" or something, unless it's only spearmen.
 * Fixed.
 * "Medieval Age" linked twice in opening paras.
 * Fixed.
 * Empire Earth has italics some places and doesn't other places. I suggest using everywhere. Same for a few Empires:DotMW titles in the References.
 * Fixed
 * No, not fixed. Here are just some of the places where it isn't fixed: "the company's previous title, Empire Earth"; "every time period used in Empire Earth"; "graphically Empires DOMW is a gem" "first Empires game"... Do a thorough search, please, you can just use the search box in your web browser.
 * Sorry I thought you only meant in the reference section. They are all italicized now except if it is Empires Aeon or Empires Heaven, which I left. Should those be capatilized too?
 * No (assuming you mean italicized), just the titles of games. This is from Manual of Style, where the game is a work of literature or art. (To stretch a point! :-) ) I think web sites are more like company names, which aren't italicized. Looks like you got them all this time.
 * Another issue: "In multiplayer, there are two playable game types. The first is the shorter battle-oriented action mode, and the second is the longer Empire Builder Mode" - if you write that, you really should explain the difference, or at least describe EBM with a few adjectives like you did with action mode. Also, if EBM is capitalized, shouldn't Action Mode also be?
 * I cleaned it up a bit. Better?
 * Better, but I don't know what "better defended" means. Units get a bonus to their defense? The company defended the mode from criticism by reviewers? It may be worth while to invest a full sentence to explain.
 * Apprently it wasn't. It's been fixed.
 * Good enough.
 * New point: "guidence" is usually spelled "guidance".
 * fixed

It's all taken care of now, but most of it was taken care of by the time I started working (thanks Jimmy). Anyway, I finished up the other ones. Thoughts?--Clyde Miller 02:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's looking better and better, I think the end is in sight. Don't forget, you didn't quite get to all the issues in the earlier section; I'm especially interested in a few sentences on or from the reviews comparing with Empire Earth and Rise of Nations. If we can't write sales figures, we should at least write that. By "we", I of course mean "you". :-) AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did some more work. I know there's more left, but I'm kinda busy right now, and doing my best. I also started writing that comparisions paragrapgh.--Clyde Miller 03:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't wait! AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the comparisions and the refs in my sandbox, so now I just have to finish up the paragrapgh part. I also responded to a couple more things.--Clyde Miller 20:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I think all issues have been addressed, so I wait to see for final imporvements.--Clyde Miller 04:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Minor issues left, but a fair number of them. I'm sorry if it seems to be painful and taking a long time, but a featured article is really supposed to be the best the Wikipedia has, "brilliant prose". Can't support yet. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's alright. I want Empires to be the best it can, and I can't thank you for how much you improved it. I fixed some of the issues, so let me know what you have to say. By the way, congrats on your adminship. I would have voted, but you didn't need any more pile-on supports, and it would have looked like I'm trying to gain your favor to by voting. Anyway, considering how much time you've helped me, I know you'll make a great sysop.--Clyde Miller 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all right, I'll take what praise I can get. :-) (Here's what I wrote about a somewhat more extreme case of pile-on support: ) . AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry. I thought voting would be a little too political given the circumstances. Anyway, I fixed the problems.--Clyde Miller 23:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Almost all done. I'm going to strike my opposition and change to support, trusting that you will fix my two or so remaining points. Meanwhile, I've noticed others have started commenting as well. Carry on! AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I took care of the last few problems you found. Unfortunatly, this FAC was closed and Empires failed, but we plan on re-entering it in a week or so after some copyediting is done (for the prose), so I hope to see you there. A big thanks to all your help and suggestions.--Clyde Miller 23:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Section Break

 * Support, as I think it looks excellent, and covers the topic well. Tuf-Kat 02:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Object, prose is still flawed. "To be victorious, players must raise balanced and organized armies, utilizing micromanagement by breaking armies into groups."  This is a really awkward sentence that makes an original assertion without a cite to back it up.  Also, the game isn't actually isometric, so there's something iffy about calling it such.  Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 14:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are you objecting because of that sentence, or because the prose overall is flawed, and you are using that as an example? Also, while I haven't played the game myself, I have never seen anything suggest that the game does not take place in an isometric perspective. Would you mind clarifying what you meant by that? JimmyBlackwing 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just one example of many weak, choppy or redundant sentences. It just feels really weak, because I can get well into the gameplay section without any mention of how this game is any different from any other RTS, since all it's done so far is restate the conventions of the genre.  isometric is defined as all objects being the same size regards of the distance from the camera.  The images used to illustrate clearly show objects receding into the distance and becoming smaller the further away they are.  The angle onto the playing field seems reminiscent of old isometric games, but it'd be more accurate to describe it as 3/4 or whatever the actual term is rather than isometric. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As for prose, it is not excatly my strong point, as I'm relatively a new editor. Ergo, I'm not sure where to find "weak, choppy, redundant sentences," but I'll look anyway. As to the isometric perspective, I'm sorry who added that, but it wasn't me and went unnoticed. The game is 3D, so I fixed that. Any spots that sound weak to you I'll work on, starting with the sentence you mentoned.--Clyde Miller 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * but uh first I think it might be helpful if I knew why that sentence was weak, other than maybe citing it.--Clyde Miller 23:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I found a ref for the micromanagement part, and the sentence was reworded because of it. Is it okay now? Also, any other ideas to further improve Empires?--Clyde Miller 23:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Object. The writing is very messy. Here are examples just at the top. The density of problems indicates that the whole text is problematic.
 * "un-official"—Last time I looked, this was one word.
 * fixed
 * "The game features seven different nations:"—Spot the redundant word.
 * fixed.
 * "The game was subject to a positive critical reaction."—Isn't there a better way of wording this? For one thing, "subject" is more usual for negative critical reactions.
 * How about "The game was the focus of positive critical reaction". Still a bit laboured; "The game attracted positive critical reaction"? Tony 01:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I added your sentence.
 * "As a real-time strategy game, Empires consists of commanding units from a complete 3D perspective, and combatting opponents to achieve victory." No, the game doesn't consist of these, actions; the game requires players to command ...
 * fixed.
 * The US is a "civilization"? Hardly. No, seriously, folks, it's an unusual usage of the word; above, it's "nations". And when you say "some" civilizations, if there are only seven nations, why not specify the number? Then we have "ages" vs "epochs"—are these the same? If so, please use the same term.
 * I tried to clean up a little and made all the terms ages and civilizations. Although an odd use, the U.S. is a civilization in the game, and I removed all nation uses. What do you think? Better.
 * Um Deckiller changed up the wording so it's not all civilizations. Is this better or should I change it back to what I had before?
 * Overhanging full-stop under Gameplay. ''Is there an errant space before it? Locate with finder." Tony 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry to sound stupid, but what's an overhanging full stop? (I know stop means ".")
 * I think I found it.


 * I added some responses and did my best to fix the prose. I'm looking into finding some help from someone who is good at prose, and will try to look it over myself. In the meantime, I'll do my best to fix anything else you find. Thanks for the help.--Clyde Miller 01:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I worked on the problems you said, and have contacted some people to help me with prose. Any more help?--Clyde Miller 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral as of now until the prose is further enhanced. &mdash; Deckill e r 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)