Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Europa Barbarorum/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 GrahamColm 07:44, 13 May 2012.

Europa Barbarorum

 * Nominator(s):  It Is Me Here  t /  c  21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that I have cleaned its prose up, getting it to GA status, and have since removed forum-post references.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Noleander End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Has this article been through the WP:PEER REVIEW process?  That is often a great help in ensuring success in the FA nomination process.
 * Put footnotes at end: e.g. " ... they called the mod "breathtaking" in an official[46] statement.[47][48]".   Putting the footnote 46 in the middle of the sentence disrupts the readers experience.  Unless there is a compelling reason, it should be at the end.  The fact that the one source is for the "official"  claim can be noted in the footnote itself.
 * Creators? - The Lead should explicitly state who the creators were. A casual reader may get the impression that this is an official game, when in fact it is a vartiant created by .... who?  Fans?   Paid? unpaid?  In any way affiliated with the original game creators?  All that should be explained in the lead.
 * Define team: Similar issue as above: the article several time mentions "The modification's development team's stated aim..." but never defines who that team is.
 * Reviews - Many game articles include an Info box which lists a handful of review scores. Can that be done for this article? Or do mods not get scored?
 * define term: " as the best mod ..." - need to define "mod" probably after first use of modification, as in: "modification (mod)".
 * Wording: "... felt that such factions' representations in Rome: Total War conformed more ..." - the "faction's representations" is not worded smoothly. Suggest re-write the whole sentence.

Source review - spotchecks not done Leaning oppose at this time. An awful lot of self-published/primary sources here, added to some less-than-stellar sites. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "the development team had previously stated..." - source?
 * FN1: don't italicize UK
 * FN2: author profile is only open to subscribers; can you confirm that it's the development team?
 * Several of your web sources are missing publisher info
 * Use consistent italicization
 * Be consistent in whether websites are cited using website name or publisher
 * What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This
 * Don't use hyphens in titles where endashes should be used instead

Delegate's comment After five days and no response from the nominator, I have decided to archive this nomination. Graham Colm (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.