The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 20:49, 8 June 2017 [1].
Hello, this is the second Featured Article nomination for this article. Since the previous nomination, the article has gone through a few small expansions, and been proof-read multiple times by a couple of editors. I think it's at the standard of an FA, though I'd love to hear the opinions of everyone else. If you've got any ideas for the article, please list them! Recently, I've received a bit of FAC mentoring from HJ Mitchell, who also helped with the final stretch. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Addressed comments from Aoba47
|
---|
|
Addressed comments from Famous Hobo
|
---|
Lead
Gameplay
Synopsis
Development
Reception
That should be a good first read through. Looks promising so far. The article seems to be in better condition then when it was first nominated, and I think it's almost there. Famous Hobo ( talk) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, good work so far. Here's another batch of comments.
@
Famous Hobo: Cheers for the new points. I've left replies above.
Anarchyte (
work |
talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, we're getting really close, just a few more things I need to bring up.
Once those points are addressed, I'll support. BTW, you can check alt text with the handy dandy altviewer. Famous Hobo ( talk) 06:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
|
I'll stop pestering you about the screenshot, as it does it's job. Since all of my comments have been addressed, I'll Support. Good job, and I hope everything goes well from here on out. I know the struggle of working on an FAC. Famous Hobo ( talk) 07:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@ FAC coordinators: Well, it's been open for a while and it hasn't received any more comments, opinions? Anarchyte ( work | talk) 06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Addressed comments from Jaguar
|
---|
Those were all of the minor nitpicks I could find during my first read through this article. Overall it is comprehensive, well written and engaging. I noticed a couple of refs are missing publishers but that's minor. Once all of the above are out of the way then I'll take another look at this and will most likely support! JAG UAR 10:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks for addressing them! I'll happily lend my support now. Quite impressed with the reception section too—it reads as cohesive prose rather than a list of reviewers themselves. Definitely preferable for a FA in my opinion. JAG UAR 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator comment: I was looking at this with a view to promotion but hit a few issues in the lead. I think I'd like a few more eyes on the prose before we promote this.
Addressed comments from Sarastro1
|
---|
Nothing major, but I'd like someone to take another look just to be sure. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
Addressed comments from Moisejp
|
---|
Lead:
Gameplay:
More comments to follow.
Moisejp (
talk) 01:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Development and release:
Reception:
Similarities with Autumn Leaves:
That's all my comments for now, thanks. Moisejp ( talk) 06:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm staisfied with all of your above changes and replies, thank you. Remaining minor comments:
Thank you for the review,
Moisejp. I've responded to the new comments above.
Anarchyte (
work |
talk) 05:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC) |
OK, I'm ready to support now. You've addressed all of my concerns, and I feel the article is much better shape. I've also made several copy-edits myself during the review. Nice work on the article. Moisejp ( talk) 05:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, unless I've missed them, we'll need the following checks before considering promotion:
All of these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
As requested, I'll comb through the article's sources to see if they're all reliable and formatted correctly:
Addressed source review from Jaguar
|
---|
|
All of the sources are listed at WP:VG/S and are therefore reliable. I've spent some time checking the sources to make sure they back up what is mentioned in the article and everything checks out, just like I thought it would. The above points are minor nitpicks so with that aside I'll be more than happy to support on the sourcing side of things. JAG UAR 11:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator comments: A fairly minor couple of points, but still seeing little issues. First, the link for Nuka-Cola redirects to the List of fictional beverages but this does not include Nuka-Cola. Also, Nuka-Cola is named in the lead but not in the main body. Sarastro1 ( talk) 18:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Addressed comments from Mike Christie
|
---|
I've copyedited; please revert anything I messed up. I got rid of the spelling error in the quote from Veer; per Wikipedia:Quotations#Formatting it's OK to correct trivial spelling errors where they don't affect the meaning. A couple of remaining points:
-- Otherwise this looks in pretty good shape; I expect to support once these points are fixed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
|
Support. The points I raised have been addressed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 08:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot ( talk) 20:49, 8 June 2017 [1].
Hello, this is the second Featured Article nomination for this article. Since the previous nomination, the article has gone through a few small expansions, and been proof-read multiple times by a couple of editors. I think it's at the standard of an FA, though I'd love to hear the opinions of everyone else. If you've got any ideas for the article, please list them! Recently, I've received a bit of FAC mentoring from HJ Mitchell, who also helped with the final stretch. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Addressed comments from Aoba47
|
---|
|
Addressed comments from Famous Hobo
|
---|
Lead
Gameplay
Synopsis
Development
Reception
That should be a good first read through. Looks promising so far. The article seems to be in better condition then when it was first nominated, and I think it's almost there. Famous Hobo ( talk) 17:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, good work so far. Here's another batch of comments.
@
Famous Hobo: Cheers for the new points. I've left replies above.
Anarchyte (
work |
talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Alright, we're getting really close, just a few more things I need to bring up.
Once those points are addressed, I'll support. BTW, you can check alt text with the handy dandy altviewer. Famous Hobo ( talk) 06:47, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
|
I'll stop pestering you about the screenshot, as it does it's job. Since all of my comments have been addressed, I'll Support. Good job, and I hope everything goes well from here on out. I know the struggle of working on an FAC. Famous Hobo ( talk) 07:48, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
@ FAC coordinators: Well, it's been open for a while and it hasn't received any more comments, opinions? Anarchyte ( work | talk) 06:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Addressed comments from Jaguar
|
---|
Those were all of the minor nitpicks I could find during my first read through this article. Overall it is comprehensive, well written and engaging. I noticed a couple of refs are missing publishers but that's minor. Once all of the above are out of the way then I'll take another look at this and will most likely support! JAG UAR 10:48, 9 May 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks for addressing them! I'll happily lend my support now. Quite impressed with the reception section too—it reads as cohesive prose rather than a list of reviewers themselves. Definitely preferable for a FA in my opinion. JAG UAR 14:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator comment: I was looking at this with a view to promotion but hit a few issues in the lead. I think I'd like a few more eyes on the prose before we promote this.
Addressed comments from Sarastro1
|
---|
Nothing major, but I'd like someone to take another look just to be sure. Sarastro1 ( talk) 22:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC) |
Addressed comments from Moisejp
|
---|
Lead:
Gameplay:
More comments to follow.
Moisejp (
talk) 01:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Development and release:
Reception:
Similarities with Autumn Leaves:
That's all my comments for now, thanks. Moisejp ( talk) 06:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm staisfied with all of your above changes and replies, thank you. Remaining minor comments:
Thank you for the review,
Moisejp. I've responded to the new comments above.
Anarchyte (
work |
talk) 05:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC) |
OK, I'm ready to support now. You've addressed all of my concerns, and I feel the article is much better shape. I've also made several copy-edits myself during the review. Nice work on the article. Moisejp ( talk) 05:42, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, unless I've missed them, we'll need the following checks before considering promotion:
All of these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 14:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
As requested, I'll comb through the article's sources to see if they're all reliable and formatted correctly:
Addressed source review from Jaguar
|
---|
|
All of the sources are listed at WP:VG/S and are therefore reliable. I've spent some time checking the sources to make sure they back up what is mentioned in the article and everything checks out, just like I thought it would. The above points are minor nitpicks so with that aside I'll be more than happy to support on the sourcing side of things. JAG UAR 11:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Coordinator comments: A fairly minor couple of points, but still seeing little issues. First, the link for Nuka-Cola redirects to the List of fictional beverages but this does not include Nuka-Cola. Also, Nuka-Cola is named in the lead but not in the main body. Sarastro1 ( talk) 18:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Addressed comments from Mike Christie
|
---|
I've copyedited; please revert anything I messed up. I got rid of the spelling error in the quote from Veer; per Wikipedia:Quotations#Formatting it's OK to correct trivial spelling errors where they don't affect the meaning. A couple of remaining points:
-- Otherwise this looks in pretty good shape; I expect to support once these points are fixed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
|
Support. The points I raised have been addressed. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 08:55, 8 June 2017 (UTC)