Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RuneScape/Archive1

RuneScape
The article is very well written, and I think it is finally stable. It has been improved very well, and it is very informative. Someone who didn't know the game could probably learn the game inside out just by reading this article. W IKIPEE  DIO  01:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Apart from a tiny criticism section, there is no critical reaction to the game whatsoever. I know that a browser game is going to get less traditional reviews as retail games, but with 2 million active players, it will not have gone unnoticed in the press. - Hahnch  e  n 03:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with the above comment.-- Matthew Fenton (  TALK - CONTRIBS ) 09:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can help I remember the Criticism section used to be much longer than it currently is. I remember contributing information to the Criticism section on 10 April. A few days after I made that edit, someone removed most of the Criticism, retaining only a tiny Criticism section. I once nominated a similar article, NeoPets, for Featured Article status. It was rejected for reasons exactly opposite to those mentioned there. The Criticism section of NeoPets was too long, lacked reference and used weasel words. My response is: it is difficult to find reliable sources criticising an online game. NeoPets practises censorship, and most of the criticisms would come from users which have been frozen. I hope you bear this in mind regarding the Criticism section of RuneScape. I am willing to upload "proof of concept" screenshots to the article. Do you think it's currently good enough for Good Article? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What you need from a critical reaction section, isn't just criticism. It's what good external sources thought of the game.  Things like weasel words and unsourced complaints are not the kind of thing that should go there.  I do understand that a browser game is going to get less attention than a retail release, but surely there has to be some articles about it somewhere.  For example, it mentions that the game has an optional paid members section, what was the reaction to this?  Was it not documented anywhere?  If the Horse Armour addon for Oblivion can cause an absolute outcry in every piece of gaming press, surely this showed up on some radars?- Hahnch  e  n 10:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, whether you choose to believe it or not, sourced criticism for this game is rather hard to find. I mean, the only place I can think of is these Runescape-Hater websites, but that isn't actually criticism. I also know of some common stuff that my friends and neighbors and schoolmates tell me, but those will get removed because I don't source them to a website. So my question for you guys is: Does something need to be posted on a website to exist? Because that is what you are implying. W  IKIPEE  DIO  16:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's what I mean. Most of the criticisms are player opinion, and will not be found in sources that pass the reliability criteria. Hate sites, perhaps. Forums, yes. In-game screenshots, yes. Could these be used as sources? Remember, NeoPets also failed Featured Article for reasons underlined above. I am willing to contribute information to the RuneScape article, particularly the Criticism section. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak support It's come a long way since it was semi-protected. Some more criticism would be nice, it is usually quickly deleted though.  It is an extremely great arcticle though. --pevarnj(t/c/@) 19:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE It's horrible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.109.206.88 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment Not that it matters or anything cause it kinda looks like this article won't be featured, but the vote above was by an anonymous IP (who probably hates RuneScape), therefore it should be ignored. W  IKIPEE  DIO  21:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article and its related articles contain a lot of information, but being one of the top 30 or so edited articles, there is not enough coordination amongst the information to be considered a good article. The RuneScape articles mirror too much what happens in the game and not enough about it's status as a computer game. It is a mismatched collaberation of a game guide and player reviews. It should be rebuilt from the ground up, but even then, I don't think it will be good enough to be featured. --Chris 23:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose A very popular article is not always a good one. I think making this a featured article will put it on the fast track for more vandalism than it has previously seen, which is quite a lot given its semi-protected past and continued tendencies for vandalism.  Most of us have seen what happened with the Pink Floyd article when it was featured, now multiply that by a million annonymous immature RuneScape players instead of a few people that don't care for a particular band.  --yaninass2 |  talk 02:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: You do have a point there. Hmm... W  IKIPEE  DIO  13:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is unstable, currently protected, lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD, few refs, Criticism section is very small and unsourced. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The main objection seems to be the Criticism section. It is a good article otherwise. I am nominating it for Good Article. Someone please pass it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Object. Not nearly enough inline citations for such a big article. --Rory096 18:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that one. Hyenaste (tell) 14:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose For many of the reasons outlined above. I also feel this article is not very encyclopedic often having a gameguide feeling to it. (Koolsen0 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC))
 * Oppose very instable. Computerjoe 's talk 15:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The only thing it should be featured for, is an example of how letting anonymous users run amok is a stupid, STUPID policy, wouldn't have half the edits, if it wasn't for the need to keep reverting silly vandalism and misguided expansion. The criticism is another area where nobody seems to agree. Ace of Risk 18:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree I think people might like to see a game guide. (Except for the fact its mainly a child's game so adults who mainly look at Featured articles wouldn't be too thrilled.)Eugene0k2 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)