Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Europa Barbarorum/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 not promoted by

Europa Barbarorum

Europa Barbarorum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Europa Barbarorum/archive1

Nominator(s): It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that I have cleaned its prose up, getting it to GA status, and have since removed forum-post references. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

• Has this article been through the
  WP:PEER REVIEW
  process? That is often a great help in ensuring success in the FA nomination process.
• Put footnotes at end: e.g. " ... they called the mod "breathtaking" in an official[46] statement.[47][48]". Putting the footnote 46 in the middle of the sentence disrupts the readers experience. Unless there is a compelling reason, it should be at the end. The fact that the one source is for the "official" claim can be noted in the footnote itself.
• Creators? - The Lead should explicitly state who the creators were. A casual reader may get the impression that this is an official game, when in fact it is a vartiant created by .... who? Fans? Paid? unpaid? In any way affiliated with the original game creators? All that should be explained in the lead.
• Define team: Similar issue as above: the article several time mentions "The modification's development team's stated aim..." but never defines who that team is.
• Reviews - Many game articles include an Info box which lists a handful of review scores. Can that be done for this article? Or do mods not get scored?
• define term: " as the best mod ..." - need to define "mod" probably after first use of modification, as in: "modification (mod)".
• Wording: "... felt that such factions' representations in Rome: Total War conformed more ..." - the "faction's representations" is not worded smoothly. Suggest re-write the whole sentence.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

• "the development team had previously stated..." - source?
• FN1: don't italicize UK
• FN2: author profile is only open to subscribers; can you confirm that it's the development team?
• Several of your web sources are missing publisher info
• Use consistent italicization
• Be consistent in whether websites are cited using website name or publisher
• What makes this a high-quality
  reliable source? This? This
• Don't use hyphens in titles where endashes should be used instead

Leaning oppose at this time. An awful lot of self-published/primary sources here, added to some less-than-stellar sites. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment After five days and no response from the nominator, I have decided to archive this nomination.