Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Age of Mythology

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 promoted 01:32, 14 October 2007.

Age of Mythology

previous FAC

I've been helping Dihydrogen Monoxide (the main contributer) with this article, and I think it passes the FA criteria. Any suggestions would be appreciated. · AndonicO ^Talk 14:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a number of sourcing issues that need to be looked at:
- This article is using another Wikipedia article as a source. You should instead be using the citations given in that article.
- One of the sources in this article links to a forum -- is the author of this message a reliable source (e.g. a developer)?
- "32 website users gave the game an average score of 8.2 points" -- it is not a good idea to use this sort of stuff as a reference for fan reception. Anyone can easily ruin these statistics by creating multiple accounts. You should only be citing reception that comes from a professional reviewer or from a reliable source that has used a good method to judge fan reception. --- RockMFR 15:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Fixed: I've fixed the wikipedia reference; the user on the forum was an Ensemble Studios employee, so I left that reference alone; and I removed the user review sentence. · AndonicO ^Talk 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  One more thing: could you possibly integrate PC Gamer's review into the article? --- RockMFR 13:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll read the review and add a few parts to the article as soon as I have time. · AndonicO ^Talk 14:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. · AndonicO ^Talk 01:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Obviously, as someone who's written most of the article :) Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 02:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think this article could use more information. For example, it says it runs on Windows, but which versions? Is Vista supported? (On my own I found a site that answers the first question but not the second). The campaign editor has a three-sentence subsection, but doesn't say whether the levels created are posted or allowed to be posted online or where to get them. The article says "Multiplayer tournaments and LAN parties are popular throughout the world" but doesn't provide a citation, and really should give more information about a statement like that. Is it still true "now" that the game has been out five years? 70.15.116.59 21:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything about Vista support. I'm about 90% sure it works, but could do with a ref :) I cited the other platforms though. I also cited the MP tournaments line, and explained the map types a bit better. I don't know where you got the five years quote...but that would be true as it was released in 2002. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Same reasons as the previous FAC. The reception section is poor, it's a choppy list of numbers, I mean what does "Finally, the game scored 9 points out of 10 in the tilt criteria" even mean? Instead of focusing on just three reviews and writing synopses for them, it should focus on the game, and flow through how each of its features were received. I'm still not sold on Avalanche Online being a decent source for reviews; compare Music4Games's review with Avalanche's, only one of them seems to know anything about music. The Golden Gift downloadable content pack is worth a mention.[1] - hahnch e n 23:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Review and campaign stuff done. Not sure what you want in terms of reception (could you please clarify?). Thanks, — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He means that instead of devoting a paragraph to what a single reviewer says, write a paragraph for each of the game's features, with various reviews either praising or complaining about that feature. · AndonicO ^Talk 13:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AndonicO is right in regards to the reception. I think you can draw more from the soundtrack review, it describes the soundtrack really well, the references to the ney flute, tabla and toy piano give it an exotic light hearted flair which the audio section ignores. From reading the section, it could just be a generic John Williams-lite classical fare. - hahnch e n 22:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, I'll attempt to address that now. — Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 04:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article's prose flows well enough. I made a few edits in the soundtrack section which hopefully improves the prose though. I mentioned this in the previous FAC, but you should reduce the resolution of some of the screenshots, the preview image size is 800x600 and that seems appropriate. - hahnch e n 13:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Images resized. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
support - this is a good article: comprehensive and filled with information. Good use of images, inline with MoS. I will be gald to help with any problems raised over the life of this FAC. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support Inline. Well written and well sourced. Dfrg.msc 06:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. It's comprehensive and well sourced, but throughout I see grammar and some informal word choice, particularly in the "Reception" section. I'll see what I can do to help that present situation. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through it, made the necessary corrections, and now I feel it's okay to support. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that most of the commas you removed were really based on grammatical preference, so it wasn't really a good reason to oppose. Well written either way though, and you spotted a few mistakes in there that even AWB would have missed. ;) · AndonicO ^Talk 01:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the comma stuff had to do with British and American English. Since the game was produced in the United States and most of the text was American, I conformed it to American English. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'll have to file a complaint with my old American high-school for teaching me British grammar. :P · AndonicO ^Talk 01:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support wonderful game, and the article is just right. Let's see if any AOE articles (other than Age III) reach this quality. igordebraga ≠ 18:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm (*coughs*) hoping to get Age of Empires (video game) there next. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 08:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.