Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Duke Nukem Forever/1

Duke Nukem Forever

 * Article (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Article talk (Edit &middot; History) &middot; Watch article &middot; Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist. In my own view, a rename could be considered to distinguish the back-story from the game (if it does eventially emerge from the ether). Geometry guy 20:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Delist as technically the article is no longer stable - as with news direct from the source and new information in the last couple of days, the game has gone no longer from being the infamous "vaporware" to actual reality. In addition the Development section is presented tagged with a reasonable "timeline" concern, which can be cleaned up otherwise. M ASEM 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Question. Let me see if I understand the circumstances. A press release and other material were released during the past two days. This material has inspired editors to add and modify material. Is that it? Majoreditor (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, the game since 2001 has been "vaporware", and had become a long running joke in the video game community (it topped Wired's "vaporware" list for several years straight. Under that guise, that the game was always mythologically discussed as never likely ever coming out and that's why the game's notable, GA'ing the article seems appropriate since there was no likely point when the game would be out, and therefore the article is "stable".  Now we actually have reliable sources directly from the producers that say that it is actually being worked on, though no release date has been set, but they are much closer to a finished product than before.  This changes the game from being vaporware to a real product, and thus it is expected that the content of the article will change over the course of the next several months as news continues.  Thus, the article is no longer stable, and compared to other video game articles, it won't be broad until it is released and has critical reception.  --M ASEM  23:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * May I pose two more questions?
 * If the product hasn't been released or shared with the public, isn't it still vaporware? (I thought that software doesn't become a product until beta release or commercialization.)
 * Under what conditions does an article become so unstable that it is subject to de-listing?
 * Thoughts, anyone? Majoreditor (talk) 05:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I just checked. It's still "when it's done."  I'll consider it "not comprehensive" when 3DR actually sets a date for when it's going to be released; until then, it's as good as what has been released so far about it.  There was a huge furor too over the so-called "in-game shot" earlier this year...we weathered that pretty well.  "Stability" is a kind of tricky criteria to judge.  Some people have interpreted it as that being that no future event can ever be GA; but IIRC the list of Virtual Console games is either FA or GA, because it doesn't really change that much from day to day.  There's been hundreds of edits just because IT'S A TRAILER OMG...but, I think it'll become stable again once we all get over it. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: This article is still about Duke Nukem Forever, the running gag of video game development, not Duke Nukem Forever, the actual game that will come out whenever the hell it actually comes out. Nifboy (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist. Article contains cleanup banner(s) and one sentence paragraphs/sections. As a forth-coming programme, article content is ipso facto incomplete and not sufficiently broad.  Ɛƚ ƈơƅƅ ơƚɑ  talk 14:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delist Who cares if it's still vaporware or not? The article is very, very poorly written. There's a huge amount of what we used to call "proseline", i.e. "On date x, blahblahblah. On date y, blahblahblah. On date z, ..." In fact, TWENTY sentences begin with "in" or "on". There are lots of one-sentence paragraphs and a couple of one-sentence subsections. And, as an example of the poor prose, take the beginnings of these three consecutive sentences from the section "Change to Unreal engine": "Broussard said that"; "He also reassured gamers that"; "He also said that". The last sentence of the lead says "as of 2003"... as of 2003? How about as of 2007/8?! Oy vey. -- Mike (Kicking222) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist The two biggest issues for me are 1) The poor writing as noted above and 2) Even though there are many references, there are still some sections that need them, such as the last 2 paragraphs of "Change to Unreal engine". It is a pretty good start, and much better referenced than most, but the prose still seems below even the "well written" standard of the good article criteria.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  21:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment So, it has come down to all this...after Krator denied A-class rating, I asked him twice how it could be fixed and started a new talk page section to open more thoughts on fixing it. DNF is still a very unique thing – a development so long that I didn't think it could be easily summarized Final Fantasy VII style.  I even asked Deckiller how it could be fixed (his response).  And to think, all this time, the answer was right here, at GAR...er, what was that answer, again?  Delisting. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You have above some very concrete things to fix. If you fix it, say, now, then the article will probably not be delisted.  The rewrite spelled out by Kicking222 seems quite reasonable and easy to do.  Also, as I have noted, several sections lack any referening.  Why not work on those things, and say "I think I fixed it... now what".  Every person voting delist wants this article fixed to GA standards.  EVERY ONE OF THEM.  We all would prefer to see the article fixed up.  You have things to fix listed above.  Get on it. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  03:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well said. I don't think anyone here takes pleasure in denying that little green dot to any article. Quite the reverse in fact. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)I don't know how to. I didn't know back in July how to shift it from timeline style to prose style, asked a couple of others whether they knew, nobody responded.  Does User:Hbdragon88/Temp simply shift the chairs on the Titanic?  Or does it s(t)ink like before?  There are some things that I could not source last January, and still have not found, but to remove them completely would make it less comprehensive than it is now.  It's fine, honestly.  I am simply a bit frustrated, but it's nothing personal or hostile towards anyone here.  This is good peer review. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)