Development history of The Elder Scrolls series was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is too heavy on text. The sections drag on and on, and makes it boring to read. Please consider dividing into smaller subsections. Also consider adding a few more screenshots or concept art and stuff. You may also consider adding a timeline summarizing the development history. -- soum talk 07:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for failing and recommendations:
Thanks for the very hard work of everyone who contributed. Once the points have been fixed, please do resubmit for GA approval. Please feel free to discuss below, or leave me a message on my talk page! Happy editing!
Mouse Nightshirt |
talk
14:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This could have been taken to WP:GA/R considering the fail and corrections all took place in the same day. Regards, LaraLove T/ C 11:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed this article, and I think that it deserves GA, but I must note that I am giving it the benefit of the doubt. All is good but:
These are the only solid issues I could locate, though it is possible that there may be many grammatical or spelling errors in this large body of text, so a final copyedit may be in order. Congratulations to all those involved. Any questions showuld be directed to my talk page. Thanks - GA pass. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Patently unreasonable? I passed this article, against my better judgement, and I am accused of being unreasonable. And I will take your challenge of finding a shorter FA - todays featured article - An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. While it has longer paragraphs, it is shorter. This article needs more structure. It needs trimming because it is over-detailed in areas. An example, which is something you say you so dearly need, could be Development history of The Elder Scrolls series#Promotion and release. It has extraneous detail; it could be summarised and still be good in perhaps 8 or 9 long-ish sentences. This is a trend which exists through much of the article. This is what I'm talking about. This is why the prose section failed in the last GA. I still do not feel that this issue has been addressed adequately. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 08:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed this because it was put up for reassessment and after reading it was thinking that it is an unnecessary content fork. The content here could be summarised in the The Elder Scrolls and each game could have the more detailed information. The problem with the current arrangement is that you end up having to update multiple articles each time instead of just one or two (hence the reason it was nominated for reassessment). It also results in a lot of information repeated. At the moment it comes across like a complex DAB page, especially the way it is set out. AIRcorn (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose. There are some things that an article about the development of the whole series can cover that can't be covered in the individual game's articles. This article can cover events such as developmental work between games, actions performed on a larger scale that ties in multiple games, and provide some overall unity of the development of the series. The solution is to improve this article, not merge it.--
Futuretrillionaire (
talk)
14:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Support merge per Aircorn and ΛΧΣ. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Support merge per above reasons; this article would be better summarised as a section in The Elder Scrolls article. The info in each section is somewhat redundant if it just repeated from the individual game articles. The1337gamer ( talk) 10:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Development history of The Elder Scrolls series was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article is too heavy on text. The sections drag on and on, and makes it boring to read. Please consider dividing into smaller subsections. Also consider adding a few more screenshots or concept art and stuff. You may also consider adding a timeline summarizing the development history. -- soum talk 07:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Reasons for failing and recommendations:
Thanks for the very hard work of everyone who contributed. Once the points have been fixed, please do resubmit for GA approval. Please feel free to discuss below, or leave me a message on my talk page! Happy editing!
Mouse Nightshirt |
talk
14:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This could have been taken to WP:GA/R considering the fail and corrections all took place in the same day. Regards, LaraLove T/ C 11:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed this article, and I think that it deserves GA, but I must note that I am giving it the benefit of the doubt. All is good but:
These are the only solid issues I could locate, though it is possible that there may be many grammatical or spelling errors in this large body of text, so a final copyedit may be in order. Congratulations to all those involved. Any questions showuld be directed to my talk page. Thanks - GA pass. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 14:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Patently unreasonable? I passed this article, against my better judgement, and I am accused of being unreasonable. And I will take your challenge of finding a shorter FA - todays featured article - An Experiment on a Bird in the Air Pump. While it has longer paragraphs, it is shorter. This article needs more structure. It needs trimming because it is over-detailed in areas. An example, which is something you say you so dearly need, could be Development history of The Elder Scrolls series#Promotion and release. It has extraneous detail; it could be summarised and still be good in perhaps 8 or 9 long-ish sentences. This is a trend which exists through much of the article. This is what I'm talking about. This is why the prose section failed in the last GA. I still do not feel that this issue has been addressed adequately. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 08:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I noticed this because it was put up for reassessment and after reading it was thinking that it is an unnecessary content fork. The content here could be summarised in the The Elder Scrolls and each game could have the more detailed information. The problem with the current arrangement is that you end up having to update multiple articles each time instead of just one or two (hence the reason it was nominated for reassessment). It also results in a lot of information repeated. At the moment it comes across like a complex DAB page, especially the way it is set out. AIRcorn (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Strong oppose. There are some things that an article about the development of the whole series can cover that can't be covered in the individual game's articles. This article can cover events such as developmental work between games, actions performed on a larger scale that ties in multiple games, and provide some overall unity of the development of the series. The solution is to improve this article, not merge it.--
Futuretrillionaire (
talk)
14:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Support merge per Aircorn and ΛΧΣ. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Support merge per above reasons; this article would be better summarised as a section in The Elder Scrolls article. The info in each section is somewhat redundant if it just repeated from the individual game articles. The1337gamer ( talk) 10:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)