Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flood (Halo)


 * 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 by User:SandyGeorgia 20:35, 23 July 2008.

Flood (Halo)

 * Nominator: -- David Fuchs 
 * FAC 1, FAC 2 (18:32, 1 January 2008)

Article has failed last two FACs because of lack of responses, concerns about meeting WP:WAF, and own nominator ignorance. However, it has gone through peer review, been copyedited twice by me (although I admit I might have missed some minor things), and I added in three paragraphs of out-of-universe information, so I believe all the bases are covered. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

 Weak Support - Ah, the Flood - I hated them when playing Halo 1! Couple of minor things, mostly good though:
 * Concerns of comprehensiveness issues relating to criteria 1b in the first and second FAC nominations have been resolved from what I can see.
 * The article mentions cultural impact and development. This is referenced to reliable third party sources including most importantly several published books, MTV and GameSpot.
 * My only concern with the references is http://www.cmdstore.com as a source, as it is a commercial website.
 * When citing the same book more than once, there is no need to repeat the book title, publisher, ISBN and first author name. Instead, use this format: "Nylund (2003). p. 199."
 * It also looks like the prose has been improved since the last FAC, but there might be minor stylistic things I have missed.
 * It would be nice if you could add 'p.' and 'pp.' appropriately before page numbers in the footnotes, to avoid any confusion.
 * It would also be nice if you could add a little bit more detail to some points. The merchandise, did it sell well? Also, when was each action figure released onto the market?
 * Minor prose issue: "rather than something the player happens upon and shoots." - happens upon? — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 17:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm on it. I'm not sure if I can replace all the Cmdstore refs, but I can at least do one or two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Almost there. Ref 1 needs 'p.' in front of page number, and ref 13 needs pp. instead of p., and it needs to comply with WP:DASH. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - So far there's a good flow, although Otherwise, I don't see anything to really add to the article. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph of the section Appearances, subsection Halo: Combat Evolved is a bit confusing. I only understood it as I have played Halo.
 * You should put a quick mention of the Flood in the Halo 2 subsection when it infected the heretic faculty. And of a mention of the Flood in the novel Halo: Ghosts of Onyx.
 * In the Halo 3 part, put a couple of examples of the new Flood forms.
 * From your first point, I assume you mean where the Flood cycle is explained. I've condensed it and reworded; is it better now? I've also added a passing mention to their appearance on the faculty, their confinement as of Ghosts of Onyx and a bit about the pure form. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems to be better now. --Sunsetsunrise (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Prose seems to comply with MoS at first glance. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: It would seem that this article's peer review is still open. Per the instructions, "An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time." María ( habla  con migo ) 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Augh! I removed the peer review tag and removed the links to the page, how am I supposed to close it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I closed the PR for you. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Instructions are at Peer review, where it says "How to remove a request". — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are still some issues at the peer review (Peer review/Flood (Halo)/archive1) that haven't been resolved/responded to; eg. the Gamecritics.com question. —Giggy 12:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Gamecritics.com is an independent reviews site operating since 1999; in an email requesting info about their writing policies, site owner Chi Kong Lui wrote that: "...For our reviews and feature articles, [we do fact-check]. We expected our writers to fact-check and content is reviewed by two [other] editors before publication. [...] absolutely, we would post corrections and retractions if errors are found." I consulted User:Ealdgyth about the sources, and the rationales were good enough for him at least :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Some other unresolved issues from the PR; 4th bullet point (long and confusing sentence), 2nd last bullet point; http://www.teamfremont.com/reviews/Halo2.shtml. —Giggy 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reworded; as for the review; per contact with the site team (their about us page doesn't seem to work) they've been around since 2001, and do fact checking on their features (though this is not a feature, it's a review, and it thus meets WP:SPS as verified, non-contentious material: it's their opinion, and is clearly denoted as such in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 00:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, everything else seems fine. Support. —Giggy 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I did look over the sources at the peer review, and they looked fine. (I'm a she, btw, David!). Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Support The sentences at the end of Flood (Halo) and Flood (Halo) do not appear to be cited though. However, the article imo easily passes the FA criteria regardless. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Added the citations for the two pieces in question. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support, great work! -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Comments, leaning toward support. I corrected a few problems as I was reading, but it is basically ready.  A couple questions:
 * "... the ancient Forerunner are forced to kill themselves" Here you use Forerunner as a collective noun but in the linked article, there are two versions ("The Forerunner are" and "The Forerunners are")  Which is correct?
 * "The 2006 one-shot comic ..." Unsure what this means. -- Laser brain   (talk)  03:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned both ways, so i just changed it to plural to standardize and ill do that to the other article as well. I removed 'one-shot' as it didn't really add to the comprehension anyhow (one-shot meaning it was a single issue, not a series.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 12:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.