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 not promoted 01:41, 3 April 2008.

Failed previous FAC, but significant changes were made since. I believe it has been brought up to scratch and deserves another go. Qjuad (talk) 04:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Admittedly, I am not an expert in the Half Life series of games, so I do not know if this is exactly comprehaensive, but the prose seems passable and the referencing is strong. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I did a tiny bit of clean-up on the prose (removed the word "that" about a dozen times) and tweaked one of the Fair Use rationales. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 05:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now:
- Lead - perhaps expand what kind of reaction, and to what elements of the game were received positively? The reception is somewhat tucked away. Also, perhaps note that the Orange Box release of the game was after the game had shipped, since it's more of a later release thing?
- References - ((cite web)) should be filled out completely for each ref and for consistency's sake ((cite video game)) should also be used for plot citations.
- Reception - a reception table like ((VG Reviews)) would remove the need for a laundry list of scores.
- Plot - most game articles have gameplay before the synopsis, although I admit other games have it differently. Also, the "Prologue" - it's necessary to set up the action from the previous games, but a summary of not only Half-Life and Half-Life 2 seems excessive. Also, it's not referenced.
- Gameplay - a lot of unsourced statements, such as "Her character is well-armed, making her a useful ally in combat, and she often makes suggestions to aid in puzzle-solving situations"- "useful" is POV and should be sourced.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems far from a FA standard, consider withdrawal from FAC.--Otterathome (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please highlight any particular details you feel are sub-standard so that changes can be considered and undertaken. Thanks. Qjuad (talk) 18:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- http://www.theg33ks.com/half-life-2-episode-one-reviewed-27072006 timed out on me.

All other links checked out fine with the tool.Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Half-Life 2: Episode One[edit]