Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive3


 * 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 Karanacs 14:03, 23 March 2010.

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

 * Nominator(s): Anonymous Dissident, G.W. 11:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe all the concerns from last time have been addressed. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 11:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No Dabs or broken links (though there's a couple that redirect), but the "Inventory Interface" image doesn't have alt text. -- Pres N  16:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comments Oppose. One image lacks alt text. Ucucha 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Comments from alt text from a previous FAC that still seem applicable: Alt text present, except for File:Standard_inventory_interface,_Oblivion_2006-12-27.jpg. Much of the remaining alt text is great, but I see a few problems. In the lead image, you seem to be interpreting too much instead of just telling what is on the image (for example, instead of saying it contains "the title of the game", say "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" or even describe the visual appearance of the title in a little more detail if you think that is important). The use of "camera" seems dubious in alt text for computer-drawn pictures. Ucucha 18:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the use of "camera" in this context is well-established, especially where it is used in reference to video games. Thus Resident Evil is said to have a fixed camera, early 3D games had difficulty creating a fluid camera system, and so on. This is the sense the word is used in our article on virtual camera systems. I found it the best way of conveying the sense "from the point of view of the player character". The nearest alternatives I can think of are less than optimal: referring to the player character as a material thing seems more dubious to me than speaking of a camera,, I don't believe we are permitted to write something like "you see", and I find constructions that refer to "perspective" or "point of view" very awkward (or perhaps I'm just not good at writing them). I am open to suggestions for improvement, though. Regards, G.W. (Talk) 04:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a small problem and I'm willing to let it go. The other issues stand, though, and I am now switching to an oppose until they are addressed (particularly, the missing alt text). Ucucha 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added missing alt text. I think the other issues you've mentioned are not really issues. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything looks good now, yes. Pity that I had to switch to oppose to motivate you to make this small change. Ucucha 12:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And a pity that you opposed for such a small concern. A gentle heads-up just below GW's reply (instead of a notification of opposition) would have done just as well. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 20:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support&mdash;My concerns about this article were addressed during the previous FAC. I ran through it a couple more times, but didn't spot any significant deficiencies that still need to be fixed. Thus I believe it satisfies the FA criteria. Well done and thanks.&mdash;RJH (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Seegoon: I don't have time to carry on going through; just thought I'd drop by and see what I could see. I haven't come across any genuine problems that would prevent a support, but perhaps the prose could do with a fine-toothed combing, as is the case with any article ever. Seegoon (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "and features the music of BAFTA-award-winning composer Jeremy Soule" – there's a minor ambiguity here. Does it feature music previously composed by Soule, or specially-commissioned work? The current sentence implies the former, I'd argue.
 * I'd argue that it's not an ambiguity, but simply a lack of information. Just as the sentence doesn't provide Soule's birthdate and the type of music he composed, it does not mention whether the music is old or new. This is the lead, so a summary description is desirable. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The PlayStation article calls for a capital S. I know it's nitpicky, but this article should really comply with that guideline.
 * Fixed. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The player is free to go anywhere in the realm of Cyrodiil at any time while playing the game" – this is the first mention of 'Cyrodiil'; it should be explained exactly what that is.
 * It's a realm. More detail there isn't possible without deviating from the topic and discussing plot-specific details. I've instead made a mention of the setting in the Plot (second sentence). — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "At the beginning of the game, the player select an anthropomorphic race, each of which has different natural abilities, and customize their character's appearance." – should either be "selects" and "customizes" or "the player must/ is asked to...". Also, it may be worth wiktionary-linking to anthropomorphism.
 * Good catch; fixed. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 23:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Media Check: Not Passed - 5 images, 1 audio file. All are fair-use. File:Standard inventory interface, Oblivion 2006-12-27.jpg needs to mention in its rationale this article, not just the gameplay article. Same with File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg. File:ElderScrollsOblivionScreenshot11.jpg, File:Oblivion—Horse Armor.jpg, and File:Forestride.jpg need a stronger purpose statement- to "aid in the description of the game" isn't specific enough to say why that particular image needs to be used. Try using some of what you say in the image captions in the rationale. -- Pres N  20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I will address this and post here again when finished. G.W. (Talk) 21:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On consideration, the inclusion of both the FORESTRIDE and STANDARD INVENTORY INTERFACE seems a bit much. At the moment, the sole purpose for FORESTRIDE I can imagine is "this game includes horses", which is already satisfied by HORSE ARMOR. As it serves no purpose, I suggest that the image be murdered, leaving only STANDARD INVENTORY INTERFACE in the opening section. I defer to Dissident for final judgment on this matter. G.W. (Talk) 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On further consideration, the STANDARD INVENTORY INTERFACE is not necessary here either, since none of its functions (already elaborated in its internal text, for use in the series' gameplay article) are made purposeful in the accompanying article text, and I can see no way in which the article text is demonstrated in the image. The text does not discuss the inventory management in such detail as to make the image necessary, nor does it elucidate the skill and combat systems (which are, with good reason, the focus of the "gameplay" section in which the image is sited). So, um, I would have both images removed. I will again defer to Dissident for final judgment on this matter. G.W. (Talk) 21:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment&mdash;Having played the game, I would argue that the inventory interface is a significant part of the experience (as it is with virtually all role-playing games). I think the role played by the inventory management within the article should be expanded upon, rather than having the image removed.&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made specific rationales for the other two images. I have also tied the images more clearly to the article text and specified which aspects of article text they demonstrate. G.W. (Talk) 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Support. I think this article is really close, but there are a couple of things I would still like to see in it.  First, there is no mention made of the developers of the game, who they were, if they were veterans of the series, what the team size was, etc.  Some of this information may not be available, but it seems odd to discuss the development of a product without naming any names.  Second, the DLC section needs a little fleshing out within the larger context of DLC on the Xbox platform.  As one of the first games to heavily pursue DLC, Oblivion was an early test of how other developers would use DLC to enhance products.  For example, I imagine the outrage over the horse armor played a role in shaping future concepts of DLC pricing and value.  If sources cannot be found for some of this after a good faith effort, I may change my vote, but I would really like to see this addressed. Finally, I took the liberty of removing the section on Limbo of the Lost, since another developer stealing resources from Oblivion really has no bearing on the game itself. Indrian (talk) 22:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Important names are mentioned – Todd Howard and Ken Rolston, for instance. Why should we mention the names of non-notable developers? That registers as useless information. The development team was Bethesda Game Studios; that's enough. I don't know what to say about the DLC grievance. The information you're asking for is very general and possibly non-existent. Still, I'll give it a shot and get back to you. I'm acquiescent to your removal of the Limbo of the Lost section. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The DLC one may be a bit of a stretch due to available sources, so that is not a deal breaker. If you look and don't see anything I will strike that objection no problem.  Howard and Rolston are only mentioned in the infobox that I can see, though you can correct me if I am wrong.  You are entirely correct that names should be kept to a minimum, but something like "Ken Rolston, who was also lead designer on Morrowind, oversaw a team of X number of people (Moby Games can probably help with numbers if nothing else can) in the development of the game."  Nothing to big or cumbersome, just an idea of project scope and an acknowledgement that the same people behind the third game also steered the fourth. Indrian (talk) 05:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added in the game numbers as reported by Moby Games. I couldn't find anything about the DLC. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I remove my objection.
 * Comment Check the toolbox; there is a dead link. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Pretty well-written.
 * Concern about NFC. The first pic shows a man on a horse. Does this satisfy WP:NFCC? The "Horse Armor" pic: does it show why the content package was deemed meager by gamers? No. 8 again, and overall No. 3. Tony   (talk)  06:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think both meet the criteria. The first one portrays the game world, the player character, and a key element of the gameplay (travel); it certainly has contextual significance in the Gameplay section. The second one does show why the content was deemed meagre: what's in the picture is all there is to it! — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now on sources. Found several to be questionable, and other problems.
 * What makes the following reliable sources:
 * Gamingnexus.com; also, the link given doesn't have any article.. comes up blank for me.
 * Theconsolewars.blogspot.com
 * Oblivionsource.com; looks like some kid's home-programmed and self-hosted project. Staff page is blank.
 * Imperial-library.info; by "Proweler"? "[T]he topic titles have been altered to make the conversations flow more smoothly"?
 * Music4games.net; site isn't even running any more.
 * There are inconsistencies in the references. For example, footnote 30 has the publisher listed, but 58 doesn't, even though they are from the same source.
 * You've stuck multiple sources into single footnotes in a few places... Correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, but I don't believe that is an accepted convention.
 * -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  22:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Music4Games was a professional website, and respected by a whole range of games industry professionals. - hahnch e n 00:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Opposition acknowledged; will work on it tomorrow. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done some looking, and refs two and three look irreplaceable. The information they point towards is simply not discussed anywhere but on forums. (For example, that at the edge of the world "You cannot go that way, turn back." is displayed.) What do you think? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand your question. In asking what makes them reliable, I'm saying they shouldn't be used unless we can come up with proof that they meet WP:RS. If you're stating something that is in the game, you don't usually need a source, because the source is the game. -- Andy Walsh  (talk)  15:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment (I've not read the article) - I believe that a screenshot of first-person gameplay, either combat or dialogue, would serve the reader a lot better than a picture of a man riding a horse. None of the screenshots actually shows what active gameplay entails. How about taking a screenshot outside the Oblivion gates, or actually in the plane of Oblivion? I don't think the non-free usage is excessive in the article, but do think it could be more effective. - hahnch e n 00:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with above. A picture of first person and if possible also a picture with dialogue options would be very helpful to the reader. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The reception section is not of featured standard. Compared to the rest of the article and the other sections, it's quite short.  Let's start with something easy - it should contain the sales information (commercial reception) from the article lead.  But it's more fundamentally flawed than that - it doesn't flow well, the weighting is wrong, and it isn't comprehensive.
 * You've spent a paragraph nitpicking, pointing out voice acting and levelling - in a game where the response has been almost universally positive, why is this the most significant passage?
 * The sentence regarding Xbox 360 is confusing, because it contains a clause regarding the Windows version, then cuts back to the 360 - I'm not sure how important something related to one SKU on one platform is anyway.
 * The audio reception is disjointed. There's some in the audio section, and some in the reception section.  Even the bits in the reception section is disjointed, skipping a paragraph.
 * Why is there a paragraph dedicated IGN's position on the minor criticisms, when IGN's minor criticisms are never stated?
 * In conclusion, I feel the entire reception section needs reworking from the ground up. Each facet of the game should be critiqued, there should be separate paragraphs on the plot, the gameplay, the graphics and the audio.  You need to consider what the most important elements of the game are, and analyse what critics thought of it.  Right now, I know more about what people thought of the voice acting, then I did of the fundamental gameplay. - hahnch e n 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.