Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2: Episode One


 * 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 21:11, 31 October 2008.

Half-Life 2: Episode One

 * Nominator(s):   Gary King  ( talk ) 

Gary King ( talk ) 19:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments -
 * http://palgn.com.au/?sid=539ae0606915a7148a3707f345ee6757 what makes this a reliable source? (I tried to get to the "about page" but it wouldn't work.
 * Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PALGN's editorial process Gary King ( talk ) 19:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "PALGN acts as a forum for our writers to present their opinions on game related information. We do our best to make sure all the information we present on our main site is accurate - all information posted must be reviewed and validated by at least one other member of the staff. However, ultimately the information posted on the site is entirely reflects the understanding of the writer who posted it and PALGN takes no responsibility for any inaccuracies in information. The opinions of individual writers do not represent the opinion of PALGN." This isn't quite the same as a newspaper/magazine editorial process. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Referenced replaced with GameSpot. Gary King ( talk ) 17:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - went through images and prose at peer review, and I couldn't see any more issues against the criteria. Just make sure that you keep consistent tense in the reception (The reviewers should be past tense, while game elements can remain present, i.e. "So and so of Publication X said that...") -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Support: Is it really necessary to have a requirements box separate to the infobox? It's the only Valve article to do so, and the graphic advancements for the game aren't so major as to draw note to it in such a way. I'd prefer to see it rolled back into the infobox, as with other articles in the series. I could understand it if it was used in Half-Life 2's article, because that's the engine's flagship game, but here it doesn't really enhance the reader's understanding. -- Sabre (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you do that, could you please use a collapsible header so it doesn't take up massive amounts of room? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 16:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If done as in Half-Life 2, it would barely take up any room. Certainly would take up a heck of a lot less room than the box currently there. -- Sabre (talk) 16:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How's it look now? Gary King ( talk ) 17:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me, I've addressed all other issues I had with the article myself, and given the screenshot a caption commenting on the few new graphical effects, so I'm giving my support to promotion -- Sabre (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments Nergaal (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Episode One sold for $19.95 in the United States and was available over Valve's Steam content delivery platform for $9.95. needs a reference
 * a very large portion of the "references" (8 through 16) are in fact notes. I would strongly suggest moving those pseudo-references into a separate categpry by using
 * Done for references. Those notes are references; they reference quotes from the game. Gary King ( talk ) 00:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Giggy's comments Giggy (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "In the later parts of the game, the player gains a gravity gun that allows them to use physics to manipulate objects at a distance in both combat and puzzle-solving scenarios" - the paragraph thus far has been general, it's a bit odd to throw in a specific example here.
 * "As is usual policy with Valve" - I'm not sure if saying this adds anything... just say there was (extensive) play testing.
 * "Combine soldiers were given the ability to crouch while being fired upon in order to duck underneath the player's line of fire" - is this the only new ability? If not then say "for example" or something like that
 * In the reception section when saying "reviewer's' said blah blah blah" you need more than one reference to justify the plural.


 * All done Gary King ( talk ) 04:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first point isn't really resolved; see diff. It's still a specific example thrown in to a paragraph that ideally would give a very broad summary of gameplay (and indeed, does that for the rest of the paragraph). Giggy (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure where else to place it; I commented it out. Gary King ( talk ) 04:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Support as all comments addressed. Giggy (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments by Guyinblack25: Over this is good article, and is close to FA quality. The article is well sourced and fairly well writtern, especially the "Synopsis" section, very well balanced. There are some issues that stood out to me I believe should be addressed though.
 * "Gameplay" section
 * Seems a bit short. I realize the link will provide the necessary information, but I think the bare essentials should still be present.
 * Reiterate that the game is a first person shooter. Mention that the player can use different weapons (maybe that can help segue into the gravity gun content).
 * Add in anything else you think is particularly special.
 * "Reception" section
 * The first paragraph seems out of place. Maybe move it to the end of the "Development" section
 * I would remove the prices per WP:NOPRICES. I don't think the prices are anything special in this case. I would, however, mention the lower/discounted price via Steam. "It was available for pre-load and pre-purchase through Steam at a lower price..."
 * It seems redundant to list the review score in the table and the prose. I would remove them from prose, but still reference the score.
 * "PC Gamer UK rated the game higher than its US counterpart, and directed particular praise..."
 * "...PC Powerplay awarded the game a perfect score."
 * Not that big of a deal, but there are quite a bit of lengthy quotes. I would summarize and paraphrase most of them.
 * I'm not entirely comfortable supporting without any sales information. Any luck finding any such content?
 * Sources
 * Not thrilled to see a Game Revolution reference, but it's usage here looks suitable.
 * Any issue and/or page numbers for the magazine references? Authors would hurt either. What you have is fine, but more would of course be better.

Hope these help. The article has improved since it's first FAC and is shaping up nicely. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Hi, sorry for taking so long to respond. I have resolved some of the issues; I am still continuing to do so. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I've gotten everything that I've been able to fix (some of the things I haven't been; I don't have access to all of the publications, for instance.) Gary King  ( talk ) 21:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are certainly improvements. However, I still think the gameplay and reception sections need some work.
 * The mention of it being a FPS seems kind of tacked on.
 * I haven't played the game so I don't know if there is more to the gameplay or not, but the section seems too brief. That may just be my interpretation though.
 * Still some lengthy quotes in the reception section. Particularly the PC Gamer and IGN award ones, that's all the information we get from them. I would summarize their quotes.
 * Still not comfortable supporting without any sales information.
 * I'm fairly certain that Valve haven't released sales figures for copies of Episode One sold over Steam. I don't know about retail sales, but this does mean that any sales information included would not be the complete figure. Qjuad (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as it is clarified which venue the copies were sold at, I don't think this is an issue. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC))
 * The external links from the gaming network sites don't seem to provide much more than the article already does. Also, I believe such links are normally discouraged to avoid promotion of a commercial site.
 * The article has made some great progress. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Images meet criteria; nonfree images are low resolution, with appropriate and detailed fair use rationales, sources, and licenses. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Promoted, although there may be a delay in bot processing. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.  Congratulations!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.