Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Movie Battles/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 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Movie Battles
Self Nominating Movie Battles This article is about as good as it can get, and while it isn't long, the criteria doesn't demand that, it just demands "appropriate length" which fits rather well.. It became a good article a month ago, and it seems good enough to get a FA now. I know many of the sources come from the same source, but it is really difficult to find many sources for a rather small mod like this.  Y zm o  talk  21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is Movie Battles, but the lead sentence says Movie Battles II. Which is it? At first glance, I'm concerned by the number of references from "Movie Battles website" and "Movie Battles forums". Are there any more reliable secondary sources that can be used here?  Pagra shtak  21:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right with the title, it's confusing... The thing is that the Mod itself is called Movie Battles hence the article name, but since it's on version 2 now.. its ALSO called Movie Battles 2 do differ from the other one which was made for an older game. So i don't really know what to choose. I mean, it's not really a big deal to change it, but the question is what to change...
 * About the sources, i know this is a small issue, but as i stated in the nom, it's very hard to find better 3rd party sources which are more reliable.  Y zm o  talk  21:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comments: I dont like in the infobox where in the system requirements it says "Identical to Star War Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy", it should have its owns system requirements detailed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadseys (talk • contribs) 01:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So i should just copy them over?  Y zm o  talk  07:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a good idea, because that way people don't have to follow a link to see the system requirements --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 09:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've taken the liberty of expanding the system requirements section myself --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 10:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Additional comments I'd like to see more on how the idea for the game was conceived, produced and definately more about the critical reaction it received from the gaming community --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 10:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here we get to the same problem again, Movie Battles is a rather small mod, not very much known outside the JA community, therefore, almost all sources on reception you can get are from Community and clan forums, which i have heard are not really good sources.  Y zm o  talk  15:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you try and fix one up anyway and we'll give it an appraisal? --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, first there is of course the Critism post on the official forum (again, no good 3rd party source). . Then we have the release announcement posts with their replys showing the reception of the single builds.. again on the official forum.. . There are also the comments on the moddb entry  as well as the thread about the very first Movie Battles and how that was received.  Both of these are already cited soures. There is also this  news entry with it's comments.  Y zm o   talk  21:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Totally lacking a reception section. - hahnch e n 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm worried about the sourcing in this article. Forums are not considered reliable sources.  The bulk of the article is sourced to the self-published website, which isn't great, and the two non-self-published sources appear, from what's in the article, may only mention this mod in passing rather than focus on it.  That makes me question whether the article even meets notability standards.  Karanacs 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two kinds of sources from the self-published website, first, a few things from the features section, which works as some kind of online game manual, and game manuals are reliable sources. The other things which are cited are the changelog, which is, well, would not be available anywhere else and which does not contain any POV since it's a simple list of changes. The last thing would be the credits section which only is used to compare the The New Era team with the Movie Battles team. And things like this would naturally be of neutral POV since its just another list of names, sure, its self published, but who would publish the credits if not the mod team itself ;) .  Y zm o  talk  22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that this article has gone through an AFD and survived. This contains many points which have been mentioned above. This is a very small subject with a highly limited number of sources: hence the shortness of the article and the lack of a Critical Reception section. I believe the use of forum topics as reliable sources depends on the context: as the forum posts cited are made by the developers themselves and not some random joes, I think that qualifies them as reliable. Una LagunaTalk 21:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't know how the article survived AFD in the first place. While it was better than the AFD version, sourcing is a very, very major issue, almost all the sources are either the Movie Battles website, which isn't independent, or trivial mentions. Sorry unless this is fixed, it's a candidate for deletion, not featured. This is a Secret account 00:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only sources from the official website are the changelog, which is the most accurate when it comes from there, aswell as the credits.. None of those can contain any kinds of POV or anything. Then there are also cites from the features section, which sort of is the mods game manual. And game manuals are allowed sources, many other video FAs cite them. And they are always self-published.  Y zm o   talk  17:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose Way too short for a featured article. Cat&#39;s Tuxedo 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The criteria doesn't demand a long article.. And this article can't really be made any longer, since there's nothing more to write about, if you dont want to go into the details.. Which isn't good according to WP:SS.  Y zm o  talk  15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.