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 21:28, 30 August 2007.

Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion[edit]

Thanks to useful comments from visitors to the talk page, and helpful comments from an early good article nomination I am ready to submit the Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion article for featured article candidacy. I have selectively added images with concise and relevant captions, and broken down the page into further subsections, as per the comments of one visitor to the talk page; I have responded to the comments of the GA reviewer, and I have continued to add to the article to ensure comprehensive coverage, a sensible article structure, and satisfactory prose. I will be glad to receive any further stylistic and compositional criticisms, as well as any other criticisms you would seek to submit in regards to this article. If this article is not up to par right now, I should hope it to be by the end of this nomination! Many thanks for your time! Geuiwogbil 07:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1.The lead paragraphs does not have any citations. Most of the info is sourced in other places in the article, but it won't hurt to source it in the lead too.
Did that. Geuiwogbil 13:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2.You may want to have a short introductory paragraph for the "Business" section. Something that will briefly outline and introduce the subsections. I think doing so will provide the reader with better understanding of how the subsections relate together. In my opinion, it seemed to jump a bit in the first couple subsections.
Originally, I hadn't broken the article down by "business" and "design", keeping with a rough chronological rather than the current topical overview. The switch to a topical overview might have mangled the connection between the paragraphs, since the connection between them all is really quite loose. I've just decided that "Publisher relations" would fit better with the "Design" portion of the article, rather than with the "Business" portion. Now I think the "Business" section flows in a good rough chronological stream, without the odd jump to employee relations early on. Does it look better now? Geuiwogbil 14:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3.The phrase "remaining silent on what games the games were for." in the rumors section sounds a bit off, you might want reword it. Other than that, the editors have done a very good job on the article. (Guyinblack25 talk 06:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've removed that comment; the implications it gives should be apparent merely from the downplayed importance of the ES ref. Geuiwogbil 13:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Guyinblack25, I'll be right on them. Geuiwogbil 12:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well sourced and adequately covers the various aspects of developing a game. Also, the recent changes helped to further improve an already good article. Good job editors. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose. Not bad, but needs copy-editing before it can be considered for promotion. Find someone new. Don't just correct these samples:

Not that I assume to have satisfied you, but I believe I've addressed the samples. I'll try to find another copyeditor to address any further issues. Geuiwogbil 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a general series of fixes for the ellipses. (I had no idea that part of the MOS even existed until today.)
  • For the "2" rather than "two" issue, I believe that your instance was the only instance of that rule disobeyed.
  • Did that; couldn't extrapolate any general rule from the statement.
  • I really don't have any sense of "formal ... register", so any further comments there would certainly help.
  • I've delinked all the partial dates.
  • I've fixed your instance and two other instances of bracketed text within quotation-marks. There's another, but it's nestled snugly in the middle of a quoted segment, and that quoted segment is actually a quoted segment within the cited source; fishing it out seems quite impossible.
  • Apologies for the archaism. I can't find any more of that.
  • Ha! Apologies for the jingle. I think that's the only [alliterative phrase/redundancy of sound] in the piece. Do alert me to others.
  • Removed the redundancy there. I'm not good at spotting that sort of thing, so I'm unsure if any remain.
  • Fixed that; I am unsure if there are any further problems.
  • Thanks for the fix-suggestions! Geuiwogbil 04:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at WP:LOCE. I'm still willing to address any more particular comments if you have them. Geuiwogbil 03:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The good Sdornan has kindly offered to do a copy-edit of the article. He's about half-way through now. Geuiwogbil 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Krator (t c) 08:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what you mean on the first point. Should I adjust the image size? Put in an "upright" tag? Or is the image itself terrible? I've added in a px specification, against the general recommendations of the MOS, for the exceptional purpose, here, of enhancing "the readability or layout of an article". Is your concern jaggies? Because I think the px specification fixes that.
  • I've added a "See Also" for Development history of The Elder Scrolls series and The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (for contrastive purposes). A link to Oblivion seems redundant, as the template at the bottom of the article already fulfills that role. Or is the template too far down?
  • I don't think you can oppose FACs based on the content of other articles, but I'll have a go at this one. Just shorter? I don't know what you mean when you bluntly say "bad". I've taken the leading paragraphs from this article and used them there. Is that adequate? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, all my concerns have been addressed. About the template at the bottom, a move to the see also section would be good I think. User:Krator (t c) 09:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did the move. Thanks for your commentary and support! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:03, 27 August 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.
More