Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/archive6


 * 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 list was promoted by 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC).

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

 * Nominator(s): Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I think most of the unresolved issues from the previous FAC has now been addressed, mainly source issues. I believe the article is now ready to be a FAC. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Were significant contributors consulted prior to nomination? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do I not count as one? I tried contacting some of them via their talk pages, but they didn't respond :/ Others don't appear to be active on WP anymore.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808
Lead Will be back later for other sections. -- JDC808  ♫  03:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How come Bethesda Game Studios isn't linked in the first sentence?
 * "a package including both Shivering Isles and the official plug-in Knights of the Nine" I was confused by what "plug-in" meant. I know what an expansion pack is (and found out that Knights is that after clicking on it), but wasn't sure what a plug-in was. Is there a page that plug-in could be linked to? You may also want to link expansion pack in case non-gamers don't understand what it is.
 * The rest is pretty good, albeit one question, is there more recent reports of its sales?
 * All done (lede). The lasted approximate sales figures I found was from November 2011.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:FAC instructions regarding "done" templates (removed). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm new to the FAC process.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Gameplay Development Soundtrack
 * Can you give an example of one of the perks?
 * Wikilink first and third person view.
 * "oversaw a development team of 268." I'm assuming that's the amount of people. I didn't get that on the first read. Clarify with either "268 people" or "268 members".
 * Last paragraph of Game World. "For example, an NPC whose goal it is to find food", remove "it".
 * Under Additional Content. "At E3 2007, it was announced that the Game of the Year Edition for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion would be released in September 2007.[43] In North America and Europe, the game was released in September 2007, for the Xbox 360 and PC," First thing, E3 is an undefined acronym (a non-gamer got on to me about it in a previous FAC). Second, was the GotY edition announced at E3 (as in there were no previous announcements for it)? If so, I'd say reword the first sentence to "At the 2007 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the Game of the Year edition for Oblivion was announced." That'll remove the redundancy of September 2007.
 * Gonna back track slightly. In the lead, I'd say remove BAFTA, and spell out the acronym in this section. -- JDC808  ♫  02:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All done (Gameplay, Develoment, Soundtrack). For the "perks" part, I didn't provide an example, but I think I clarified the statement, making an example unnecessary. One thing I didn't do however, is the part you said about removing BAFTA from the lede. Is the award not notable enough? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'm not saying it's not notable enough. It's a great honor. I'm saying it's not necessary for the lead since he's won more than just the BAFTA award. It would sound more impressive to say "and features the music of award winning composer Jeremy Soule" instead of singling out BAFTA. I won't oppose if you don't remove it, that's just my opinion. I'll let you respond before I give my support. -- JDC808  ♫  22:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay I see. I removed it. I suppose it does sound better that way. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Support All of my issues have been addressed and fixed accordingly. Good luck with the rest of the FAC and hope it passes. -- JDC808  ♫  23:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Darkwarriorblake
Just some minor things all relating to or around the lede.
 * There is no explanation of what open world is for people not educated on video games, making it useless in the opening sentence and open world isn't a genre. Recommend removing it from there and moving the link to the first instance of "Open World" in the second paragraph where the explanation is present.
 * Also the extensive listing of release dates in the opening prose makes it look messy and is unnecessary, we have the infobox for that, we don't need to know that the PC version, released in 2006, was released through STEAM in 2009, it's not a console its a delivery method, Stick to the earliest release date of different formats
 * JP release dates don't belong in the infobox unless its a Japanese game or the release there is in someway notable
 * There is a mobile release date listed, but I assume this is not strictly the same game but some kind of adaptation? There is no mention of it at all in the article, but while I'm not super up on my phones, I can't imagine it is hte same game. If it is not the game as released on the other platforms then it probably doesn't belong in the infobox about that base game, and should be discussed in the prose either way.
 * Not a major thing and maybe someone else will think different, but similar to above issue, not sure why the Game of the Year release date needs listing in the infobox, its just a re-release of the base game with post-release content, and there are two separate large Game of the Year listings for two different formats.
 * The rest seems OK. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * All done - I've trimmed the release info in the lede and put most of the infobox release dates under a collapsible list, as was done in Halo 2. I've also added info about the mobile phone release in the lede.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, this seems to be the mobile version of the game. I do think that should be described in the prose somewhere, only briefly, even a sentence would do, just saying that type of game it is, since its basically a separate game with the same name. Other than that, I will support this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is enough, but added some info about the mobile version in the gameplay section: "Oblivion can be played in either a first- or third-person view, except in the mobile phone version, in which the game can only be played in isometric projection." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Support Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Nit-picky comments by Hahc21

 * Support I thought this was already a featured article, but I see i confused it with Morrowind. I have read this article several times and, for me, it is up to standard. Anyways, I will do a very thorough read again just in case I overlooked anything. — ΛΧΣ  21  04:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * You have a quote with no citations on the third paragraph of the lead ("cutting-edge graphics")
 * " The game was developed with fully voiced characters" I think that "with" is not the right word here. You may want to say that "The game featured fully voiced characters". Also, is this for NPCs only? I don't remember the player character to talk; you have to state that too.
 * "Oblivion was well received" by who? Be a little more specific, Like "Oblivion was critically acclaimed, achievign a score of 94 at Metacritic" or something.
 * I think that mentioning how much copies it shipped in 2006 to then add a newer statistic is a bit of not needed. if I were you, I'd only stick with the 3.5m number on the lead.
 * Gameplay
 * "slay monsters"? I think that "slay" is not a word i'd use at an FA.
 * You explain what si Magicka and health, but not stamina.
 * "including standard fantasy monsters like imps and goblins" You may want to wikilink Imp and Goblin.
 * Synopsis
 * "The Emperor and the Blades head to a sewer that leads out of the city, using a secret entrance that is located in the player's cell." The next sentence doesn't make much sense if you don't state here that the prisoner (a.k.a. the player) was taken with them to the sewers. (Yes, I played the game XD)
 * "the group, joined by the player" I think that if you state (on the previous sentence) that the player followed then, you can avoid saying "joined by the player" here.
 * "had a dream containing the player" I think that containing is not the right word here.
 * More coming...
 * All done - For the sales number part, I changed the wording to emphasize the huge number sold within a month, rather than removing it. For the stamina part, I changed the term to fatigue (the term used in the manual), to avoid confusion. I also added some more info about alleviating fatigue--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Development
 * "Work began on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion shortly" - I'd prefer "Work on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion began shortly" Also, I think that you can use Oblivion and Morrowind from now on, given that you have used the expanded names in the lead already.
 * "This version includes graphical improvements that had been made since the PC and Xbox 360 release, and the PS3 version was subsequently praised for its enhanced visual appeal." - If "This version" refers to the PS3 version, then you don't need to later state that "and the PS3 version was" because you are already talking about it, and confuses the reader.
 * "a more realistic storyline, more believable characters, and more meaningful quests than had been done in the past" - In my opinion, the first "more" encompasses the entire sentence, so the other two instances of the word are not needed.
 * "The game features improved artificial intelligence (from previous titles in the series) from the Bethesda proprietary Radiant A.I." - I'd consider removing the s and changing "from previous titles" to "in comparison with previous titles" and "from the Bethesda proprietary Radiant A.I." to "thanks to the use of Bethesda's proprietary Radiant A.I." or similar.
 * "and enhanced physics with" --> "as well as enhanced physics..." to avoid weird wordings, given that the previous sentence is a bit long. Also, you can use a semi colon and write it like this: "it also includes enhanced physics...", which will read even better.
 * Reception
 * The paragraphs of this section seem to be too long. Would you consider splitting them? You have to big paragraphs that could be better handles as three, same-sized ones.
 * Try to reduce a bit more the use of quotes, if possible.
 * The rest of the article is very good. I have no more nitpicky comments. Good job :) — ΛΧΣ  21  01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * All done - For the reception section, I've done some reorganizing based on the aspect of the game being discussed, and summarized long and unnecessary quotes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great. Now it is up to standard. You already got my support, so good luck. — ΛΧΣ  21  18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Niwi3

 * Comment: "To achieve its goals of designing "cutting-edge graphics",... " could you just say "To design the graphics,..." and then move the reference to the development section? In my opinion, leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, so quotes are not needed. --Niwi3 (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't move the reference to the development section. Instead, you simply removed it. If the lead summarizes the article (as it should), then all information in the lead is also in the body of the article, so you should be able to use that reference in the body. Also, ref 120 has an inconsistent date format.--Niwi3 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I fix the date format error. As for the ref, I've added that ref recently because a reviewer noticed that the quote "cutting-edge graphics" (which is mentioned 2 times in the article) didn't have a source. The sole purpose of that ref was to support the quote. There are plenty of other sources in the development section describing the game's graphics development. However, I do agree that removing the ref was a mistake, because there the quote "cutting-edge graphics" is still used in another part in the article (specifically, the caption of an image). I've re-added the ref, and put it in that caption.
 * Nice work.--Niwi3 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: References that are archived lack the deadurl parameter. If the URL is still live but preemptively archived, then set |deadurl=no. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the parameter for all the WebCite archives, which I've recently added after I hearing the news that GameSpy and 1up are shutting down. However, I'm not sure if I need to add the parameter for the ones that use the Wayback Machine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Add the parameter for all archived URLs, including the ones that use Wayback Machine.--Niwi3 (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I will give it a full read through when I have time.--Niwi3 (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think the development section is not very well-organized and the presentation is unclear/unfocused. Why does the Additional content subsection include the Game of the Year and 5th anniversary editions? I mean, do these editions include bonus in-game content? Also, after reading Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, I noticed that the development section does not summarize adequately the article; it focuses too much on the game world and release, instead of focusing on the "overall picture" of development. In my opinion, if there's already an article that talks about the development of the game, then the development section of the game should be similar to the lead of that article. See Template:Main and WP:SS. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I addressed the other editions issue by creating a new subsection. As for the development section overall, can you be more specific about what kind of things are missing? I can't notice anything significant mentioned in the development article that's not already mentioned here.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You are mainly missing the game's marketing (product showings), and the Mobile phone version (despite mentioning it in the game's infobox). I think you should at least mention that the game appeared at E3 2005. Also, I would merge the Game world subsection into the development and then move the release info of the first paragraph to the end of the section. In my opinion, things should be ordered chronologically: development -> marketing -> release (including later editions) -> additional content. If you don't mind, I can help you with this.--Niwi3 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've done a little reorganization, added info about the E3 and Consumer Electronics Show product showings, and info about the mobile phone version release. What do you think? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work. I think it's much better now. Only 2 things: rename the Release section as "Marketing and release", and, if possible, try to merge some paragraphs together to make the Marketing and release section flow better.--Niwi3 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Done There are now 3 paragraphs in the section. One for the product showings, one for the releases of the main game, and one for later editions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Great work. In my opinion, the article is much better organized now.--Niwi3 (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Image check
Image check - still OK (already checked and trimmed in previous reviews, no new images, FURs detailed and specific). GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.