Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo 3: ODST/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 SandyGeorgia 19:47, 22 April 2010.

Halo 3: ODST

 * Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Halo 3: ODST is the expansion to what was then, the biggest entertainment launch of all time, the release of Halo 3. In this article: marketing blunders, film noir influences, and Peter Jackson. I believe it meets the FA criteria. 'Nuff said. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 22:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Support pending remaining fixes.
 * Oppose&mdash;I started working my way through the article, but I found too many issues that need resolving. In multiple cases the writing assumes prior knowledge of the game by the reader. I don't this article yet satisfies the FA criteria. Here is a partial list:
 * The statement "If the player receives damage past their stamina threshold before it can recover..." almost makes sense. Please clarify it.
 * "After finding a piece of evidence left behind (a sniper rifle hanging on a lamp post, for example), a flashback is triggered and the player assumes the role of the missing soldier in a daytime setting." Could you clarify the purpose of this flashback? How long does it last? Is the sentence that begins "After the player finds the first piece of evidence..." part of the flashback?
 * "...missing soldier in a daytime setting for the duration of the mission..." Okay so does "mission" here refer the flashback? Or is this a permanent change?
 * "ODST ships with Halo 3's multiplayer contained on a separate disc." Multiplayer what? Version? Interface?
 * The paragraph that begins "ODST takes place in the 26th century..." needs some clarification.
 * "...single ship lands above the city..." How does it "land" above the city? What does it do once it "lands" (besides leave)?
 * The flow jumps from "a single ship hovers above the city" to "while the Covenant still occupy the city". When and how does this occupation occur?
 * "...storyline follows the carrier to an..." What is the "carrier"?
 * "During the game the player can unlock audio files..." Why does this part matter? Is it just there to add color?
 * What is a "Pelican transport"?
 * &c. Sorry&mdash;RJH (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressed the above. The bit about audio files is important in that it's an optional narrative that is discussed throughout the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think the purpose of these files could use some clarification. Nowhere else in the article does it appear to clarify the role of Sadie's story.&mdash;RJH (talk)
 * I addressed this.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "...toward the ship; at the last minute, Dare changes their trajectory to miss the carrier." Apparently "carrier" == "ship"? Please clarify.
 * "...fights through Covenant to find Dare" This needs to be clarified to say "the Covenent forces".
 * What is an "ONI base"?
 * "The squad hijacks a Covenant transport ship..." Wait, only one Covenant ship reached the city. What is this? I think you need to clarify the role of the covenant ship, which I am guessing carried smaller transport ships that landed a force of Covenant inside the city.
 * "...destroying the artificial intelligence..." What AI is this? All that was mentioned was a "Superintendent's data core".
 * &mdash;RJH (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully addressed the ship issues. The ONI base and AI are mentioned earlier in the characters section (what ONI stands for, and that the Superintendent is an AI.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I finished going through the article. There are a few more issues, but most of the remaining material looks good. Please could you address the following?
 * I think the term "health mechanic" needs a little clarification. It also occurs to me that the mechanism by which a player can die isn't explained. I assume that happens when health drops to zero, but since the "health mechanic" is apparently a new addition, this is unclear. I think that should be clarified in the Gameplay section.
 * "released September 22" needs a year.
 * In the sentence that begins "Though Bungie did not consider Recon a full game..." there is a comma-parentheses pair. That seems a little redundant. Perhaps you could rewrite it a little?
 * "...merited its full price as a full-sized game." This doesn't quite make sense. Please clarify.
 * The sentence that begins "Parish said that due to the..." is also not quite right. Please clarify the meaning.
 * Thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Taken a stab at addressing the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Thank you for addressing my concerns.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * "underneath the city the Covenant is looking for" Looking for a city, or for something under the city? Ambiguous; if the latter then pls move the last several words.
 * I didn't like the "live action" paragraph for several reasons. Se article talk for suggestions.
 * I'm a huge fan of semicolons, but some of the ways they were employed in this article bothered me. &bull; Ling.Nut 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I reworded the first point as you're right, it was a bit vague. Also took a stab at the paragraph at the live action trailer. As to the semicolons, can you give me examples of where you feel they're used improperly/badly used? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I edited the semicolons a little. You probably should re-insert the bit about the Academy Award winning costume designer, and cite it. Good luck with the nom! I'm neither Supporting nor Opposing; sorry, I have midterms to make. &bull; Ling.Nut 04:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fully understand. Thanks for the edits! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Three weeks, and this FAC hasn't gained consensus for promotion. Since it has no outstanding objections, David, bring it back in a week, or you can nom another article-- do some reviews! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


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