Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grand Theft Auto IV/archive 1


 * 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 21:23, March 13, 2008.

Grand Theft Auto IV
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it's deserving of the title. There are many references, lots of information, the article is organized, has images and will only continue to be improved as new information on Grand Theft Auto IV becomes available. Nomination withdrawn. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose A little patience would go along way here: the game hasn't even come out yet, so it seems futile to promote an article based on it, especially since it's coming out relatively soon. Not only that, the citations are a mess, and much of the prose reads like WP:Recentism. Ignoring the impending release of the game, I don't think the article would even be pass GA nomination, in its current state. Drewcifer (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. It is guaranteed to change, and, not to mention, the fact that unregistered users can't edit it is a bit of a turn-off. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Every other article can change too. That's the whole point of Wikipedia, isn't it? I also don't see what the fact that unregistered users can't edit it has to do with featured article status. That's put there to protect the article from potential vandalism, not to deter unregistered users from contributing. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note Neon, you have not contributed to the article within the last two months. Perhaps one of the main contributors should be contacted first? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why should it matter if I've edited the article recently or not? ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It hurts me to say this, but, Oppose. The article is worthy of consideration, but not now. It's not stable and with the fact that the game will actually be released in two and a half months time, it is bound to change. There will undoubtedly be more information released as part of the advertising build-up to the release date. Proof of the excellent job done by everyone concerned is the fact that the marketing section has become worthy enough of it's own article. - X201 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we set that unfortunate precendent, so the more the merrier, I guess. But oppose as driveby nom and not stable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What exactly do you mean by "driveby nom"? ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's plain rude. Maybe you think the article is ready for FAC, but the very editors who have been toiling away on improving it don't. The FAC for Gears of War was just recently withdrawn for this reason. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's plain rude for you to say something like that. How is it rude to nominate an article for Featured Article status? That's more congratulating or showing that I think the work done on the article is great than disrespecting the editors who have been working on. I may not have edited the article but I've been following it for months and it's coming along pretty good. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's rude because it's a courtesy to those who are editing the article to discuss it with them before nominating the article. If you were the primary editor of the article, then this nomination could be waived off with good faith, but a "drive-by nomination" simply shows a lack of the aforementioned courtesy. I would recommend you read the featured article criteria and look at other video game articles of similar status before trying another featured article nomination. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You're acting as if nominating an article to be a featured article is a slap in the face to the editors. It shows that someone appreciates their work and thinks it's worthy of being a featured article. In my opinion, nominating an article that you are the primary editor wouldn't be as genuine of a nomination as if someone else who isn't directly affiliated with the article in any major way nominated it, but to each their own. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 02:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominating an article for featured status is a serious endeavor and should be taken seriously. If you're barely involved in editing the article in any form, then you have little to no knowledge of the decisions that went into writing it, and hardly in a position to address any comments about the article. When you nominate an article at WP:FAC, you are expected to listen to the comments and criticism, regardless of its severity as it is geared towards it meeting proper standards, and address them. That you nominated it and are doing nothing but criticizing those who are commenting here is rather insulting, as well as embarrassing to the editors who commonly edit the article, many of whom I can safely assume would not want the article here at the moment. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 05:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said the game has to be released to be a candidate for Featured Article? ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Game has not been released, thus missing information on awards/ reviews/ sale figures, lead is too short, citation needed tags. Once the game is released there's going to be a million edits to the story/gameplay etc. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Awards/Reviews/Sale Figures don't make an article. There are loads of edits to every article and you guys are acting as if that's a bad thing. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article fails 1.b of the FA criteria, and the number of edits that would take place would not make the article stable thus failing 1.e. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - semi-referenced. MOJSKA   666  (msg) 06:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Way to elaborate there, Mojska. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - game has not been released; ergo, the article is not comprehensive. Sephiroth BCR  ( Converse ) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article is not stable. Yes, most articles have a lot of editing- but not FA's.  They tend to be pretty solid, and thus not needing a lot of editing.  This article, however, will look completely different once the game comes out- you could even say it will be a totally different article.  Thus, it's not getting "loads of edits", it's unstable.  Also, the idea of a "drive-by nom" is where someone who hasn't been active on an article sees it, likes it, and nominates it with no intention of sticking around and addressing the inevitable comments and concerns that happen to every nom ever.  While the fact that you aren't an active editor of the article doesn't mean that this was a drive-by nom, making the initial reaction unfounded, the fact that you've done nothing to address anyone's concerns about the article besides contradicting their opinions means that yes, this is a drive-by nom.  Nominating an article for FA means you need to shepherd it through the process, not just drop by and make snarky comments at critics. --PresN (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Snarky comments? I'm entitled to my opinion and entitled to respond just as much as you are. What "concerns" have been made about the article other than claims that it's unstable? I don't see anyone posting things that should be done to improve the article. They're all just repeating what the other said about instability. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 21:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead is still too short, [citation needed] tags, one sentence paragraphs, article is too listy, no information on sales/reviews/awards. Improve away. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest be added to the lead? The information portrayed by the lists can't really be done that well otherwise and information on sales/reviews/awards can't be added until the game is released unless some sort of pre-order information is released by retailers or Rockstar. By the way, I love how all of you are ganging up on me and that "Improve away." ending in that tone was pretty rude. Nomination withdrawn. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. Like said above, the game isn't even out yet, and some sections are sparse because of that.  Marketing -  the section doesn't really give any info, other than to say what Rockstar has done in the past.  The article it links to has way more useful info.  The prose is also choppy at times, such as this giant sentence:


 * Niko was persuaded to move to Liberty City by his cousin Roman, who claimed in multiple e-mails to Niko that he was living a fabulous life, with a mansion, two women, four hot tubs and fifteen sports cars; but he was in fact telling lies to hide his own failures, and in fact, has set up a small taxi business, for which he has plans of a job for Niko.

The "Plot" section doesn't give much info at all, and I imagine the game's plotline will be huge like the last few. The rest of the article is very listy, the "Differences from previous Grand Theft Auto games" is pretty much just a giant list, and should be converted into prose.

The bottom line is that most of the game's elements are "secret" at this point, they haven't been released. Give this one some time. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the article cannot be stable because the game is not released yet. The article has a few short and unreferenced paragraphs and I see many citation needed" tags. Also see the "Marketing" section. --Kaypoh (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not yet a stable article, and as one of the regular editors I would have prefered if the nominitor had suggested this on the talk page first (as it would have saved everyone's time from being wasted). John Hayestalk 16:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.