Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Halo: Reach/archive1

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 by GrahamColm 10:20, 21 October 2012 [1].

Halo: Reach

Halo: Reach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Halo: Reach/archive1

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An old GA that has been significantly expanded, and hopefully is comprehensible to those who aren't die-hard fans thanks to revisions in the gameplay section. Thanks in advance for reviews, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492

• File:Halo- Reach box art.png is solid
• File:Halo reach-lnos.png - don't see how what is in the image is being discussed in text. (Most?) readers will understand what a HUD is, so it's not contextually significant in my opinion.
• File:Halo Reach-e3 2009 trailer.jpg - The Halo logo is rather prominent and may need to be blurred. I am not sure if it falls under de minimis or not. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love more opinions from other reviewers on the free image and the non-free. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Images are good. The gameplay screenshot is necessary to show the games graphics and the characters, the HUD is a minor aspect in comparison. I consider the E3 presentation photo free use - the subject is the event, the logo is a small fraction of the overall image, and is distorted by the lighting. - hahnchen 15:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• Check for consistency in wikilinking - for example, you link Game Informer in FN11 but not 8
• FN18: page formatting
• FN20 should use dash not hyphen, check for others
• Check formatting of quotes within titles
• FN65 is a bare URL
• FN77: check title. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the called out above, will do another runthrough for the general checks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll try to do a review in the next few days. Just started reading the article, the lead looks good. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Ok, I've read through the article, looking mainly at prose and grammar issues. Not a whole lot to point out, good work.
• In the first paragraph of "Gameplay" you have also in consecutive sentences, might want to cut one out.
• Overall the use of the semicolon is good in the article, might want to double check that it isn't coming up too frequently though, for variation's sake.
• Also about variation, you have consecutive sentences beginning with "Reach..." at the beginning of "Multiplayer".
• "Players assume the role of an unnamed new addition to the team, and are identified by the call sign Noble Six." I don't think the comma's needed here.
• "Halo: Reach was announced on June 1, 2009, accompanied by a trailer at the Microsoft Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) press conference.[22] An accompanying press release" A little repetition here, "accompanied ... accompanying"
• "The works-in-progress they came up with were either touched up by O'Donnell, or sent back to be finished by their composer." Not sure about the comma here.
• The beginning of the first paragraph of "Multiplayer beta" doesn't seem to flow very well to me.
• "Microsoft claimed to be actively investigating the matter." This reads fairly skeptically to me, maybe "stated" instead of "claims"?
• I think you can remove "previous" in "The agencies were previously involved with Halo 3's marketing." & " Bungie's previous multiplayer beta for Halo 3 had drawn 800,000 players."
• " Despite this, he wrote that the game suffered from overly-generic archetypal characters, as players only spent enough time with a few members of Noble Team; "I almost forgot that Noble Four (Emile) even existed for a big chunk of the campaign, as I rarely saw him."" Maybe a colon instead of a semicolon here?
• "Blake Morse wrote that the campaign "succeeded triumphantly" as Bungie's last title, owed to the omission of religious subtext and detracting features like a "telepathic plant that looks like something out of the Little Shop of Horrors"." I don't think you're supposed to link inside of quotes like that.
• "Reach continued to hold the top place in North America.[80][81] Reach" You have "Reach" two times in fairly close succession here. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to address all the above, although I'm not sure where in the MOS or otherwise it prohibits interquote linking. Thanks for the review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MOS quote/link advice is here. I've had little luck getting people to abide by it though :) Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alright, this seems to be a FA-quality article. I made a few copyedits, all minor stuff. One of the best video game articles I've read on here--for such a long piece I couldn't find much to complain about. Hope you don't have to wait a month for your second support! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Leaning support, some mostly minor stuff:

• In the gameplay section, I think "dogfight" and "power-ups" should be linked. Ditto "port" (Porting I think is the correct link) in the development section. Possibly "hackers" in the release section.
• When a player dies, all their accumulated skulls are dropped. Do we use singular they?
• "Chronicles fell apart..." Prefer something more formal sounding than a phrasal verb.
• Who is Shi Kai Wang?
• The last two very short paragraphs of the development section should probably be merged.
• "O'Donnell wrote "somber, more visceral" music since the plot is character-driven and focuses on a planet that is already known in the universe to have fallen". Last part of that reads pretty weird. If I'm reading it right, something like "...focusses on a planet that is already known - in the fictional universe - to have fallen" would be clearer.
• "touched up". Prefer "retouched" or something else less informal. Ditto "rolled out" and maybe "backed up" in the following section. Later, "rollout" is used. Is this a technical term? Similar "sorting out"; just "sorting" is probably preferable.
• "slowed to a crawl", a bit cliché, and a metaphor really.
• "Marketers focused their efforts on connecting with consumers via universal themes, rather than outdoing Halo 3's push". I don't really get this.
• Xbox Live Marketplace is linked a couple of times in the Release section.
• What's "retinal bloom"?
• Not 100% sure about this one, but I think Game Revolution's use is questionable for this level. As I said in the System Shock 2 FAC, this site used to have a crappy fansite feel to it but gradually improved over a number of years (loads of discussion in the WP:VG archives that repeatedly judged it unreliable until recently). This I guess is from 2010, which is recent-ish, but I think not new enough to be considered top quality: Blake Morse is from the long and not so illustrious looking list of "past contributors". bridies (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, I'll take a stab at addressing the above tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok I believe I've addressed the above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: Overall, this is very good. I have found a few items.
  • The first sentence in the second paragraph of the gameplay section: "Gameplay is more similar to Halo: Combat Evolved than later games in the series." I don't see that really expounded upon. It seems like a throwaway line. Perhaps you could add a sentence or two to make the connection between the two games clearer, or move up some of the specifics (e.g. shield and health depletion, assuming those are the similarities (I have only played the first Halo myself)) in order to connect the ideas a little more.
  • Next paragraph: "In Halo 3, player characters could carry single-use equipment power-ups that offer temporary offensive or defensive advantages." There's disagreement in verb tenses.
  • You put a lot of game concepts and items in quotes. My understanding is that italics are preferred for that type of thing, but it's not a big deal either way. However, the level editor Forge and the File Share feature are not in quotes. Not sure if you did that on purpose because those are separate pieces as opposed to in-game feature, or if it was just a slip.

    I'll have more later. Don't have time to read the whole thing right now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Continuing my previous comments:
  • "The game opens with the planet Reach in ruins after its destruction by the Covenant" makes it sound like the planet itself was destroyed. Can you rephrase it?

    More forthcoming. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing some spotchecks on sources now.
  • In the reception section: "Nguyen noted that large amounts of on-screen action occasionally resulted in frame rate slowdowns.[96]" I don't really see that specifically supported in the review. The closest I could find is "Even excusing the minor flaws such as slight storytelling or framerate issues, is it safe to call Halo: Reach the best Halo game ever?" on page two of the review. Am I just missing it?
  • "Players assume the role of an unnamed new addition to the team identified by the call sign Noble Six.[21]" is not supported by the source, an analysis of a trailer. You can re-use another IGN source (legendary edition review) from this sentence: "In the game's campaign, which can be played alone or cooperatively, players assume the role of Noble Six, a supersoldier engaged in combat with an alien collective known as the Covenant.[4]"
  • Although I see how you put together the 2-3 million number, I don't see the second figure in the source supporting this sentence: " Bungie estimated between two and three million players for the upcoming Reach beta, compared to the 800,000 that participated in Halo 3's trial.[48]"

    I'll wait for replies on all of these issues before adding anything else for now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, sounds like some refs got disjointed. I'll take a look today. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 11:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okey dokey: the 2-3 million line is actually split up in the ref; two million is given in the lead, and then the upwards of three million in the interview below ("My expectation is it could be upwards of 3 million people.") I've moved the IGN citation, since it didn't support the Noble Six part of the paragraph, and added in another reference for that content. I cut the frame rate line, as it wasn't really germane to the section it was in, regardless. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, yes, my comment is a little ambiguous looking at it now. I meant I saw the two million and three million figures separately in the article and was okay with how you put them together, but I could not find the 800,000 figure in the source. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:31, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, my bad. You're right, must have lost the ref along the way. I've added a Gamasutra link that has the 800,000 number. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also had some comments before the source checks. You might have missed those in the wall of text that is this review. I'll try to do a few more spot checks in the next few hours too. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I spot checked all of the following claims and sources, and they're all okay both in matching the source and avoiding too-close paraphrasing:
  • "Halo: Reach was announced on June 1, 2009, accompanied by a trailer at the Microsoft Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3) press conference.[23]"
  • "More than 2.7 million players participated in the beta, which lasted from May 3 to May 20.[52]"
  • "According to Jarrard, the team decided to have a much more "grandiose" marketing for Reach than that for ODST.[49]"
  • "In the United Kingdom, Reach's opening week was the fifth-best launch in the territory, beating Halo 3's debut by 20,000 units and ODST's by 200,000 units.[81]"
  • "Ben Kuchera of Ars Technica enjoyed the multiplayer component of Reach for its scope—"no matter how you play, you will find something to like."[115]"

    After my other concerns above are handled, I'll be ready to support. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've moved up the gameplay sentence to connect it to the common elements described, and I've just cut all the quotations, as they were rather superfluous, especially for gametypes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this excellent work now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A superb video game article. Electroguv (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.