Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War (video game)/archive4
=[[God of War (video game)]]=
:::: See God of War (2005 video game)
{{Wikipedia:Featured article tools|1=God of War (video game)}}
:Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 20:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is ready. Since the last nomination's closure two weeks ago, the article has had a reorganization and edits to the prose. In the second nomination, the article received an extensive source review (nothing has changed in regards to sources). All previous reviewers have been notified of this nomination and I encourage new reviewers to have a look. --JDC808 ♫ 20:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per original support in Archive 2. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support - as per Archive 2. Hope the article should be ready. — Hounder4 13:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support - Although, I'm not sure if my vote still counts. I think a delegate at the previous FAC brought some issues regarding canvassing.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
::Yes, the issue was I had only contacted those who supported. This time, I have contacted everyone who reviewed, which I stated in the opening paragraph of the nomination. --JDC808 ♫ 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
::Done. --JDC808 ♫ 20:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
{{Outdent}}
::Thanks. :) --JDC808 ♫ 21:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support - --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support. (having stumbled here from my FAC). I must say, I especially liked how the article is accessible and easily readable for readers who are not familiar with the material. In particular, the lede/intro section is written quite well indeed. I was able to quickly understand the nature of the game and its plot and feel like I had enough background to follow along with more detailed plot descriptions and analysis later in the article. I know this grounding for the reader with context and background material is not always easily accomplished, but in this case it was done well. In addition, the article is meticulously sourced and cited appropriately throughout. It provides broad coverage of its subject matter and a significant amount of Reception from a good smattering of secondary sources. One hopes that the quality of this article might serve to encourage readers to learn more and educate themselves about the actual history the storyline is based on. Thank you for your contributions to quality improvement of this article on Wikipedia. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
::Thank you very much. --JDC808 ♫ 06:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support More than passes the bar. Well referenced (spot check is successful), nicely written, and handles POV matters quite well. A slight note: I really think it should include a small sentence in reception about the "other side's" opinion on the QTE, since it really was the rebirth of that mechanic in this genre and some weren't so happy about it (undue weight would dictate a small mention). Yes, it is kind of nitpick... Ryan Norton 07:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks. I'll reread the reviews currently there (I don't remember them mentioning much of it) and I'll check some others. --JDC808 ♫ 17:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Support Indeed. I've read this countless times and I still think it's ready. — ΛΧΣ21 16:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks again. --JDC808 ♫ 17:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
{{FACClosed|promoted}} Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
::Thank you. This is a pleasant birthday present. --JDC808 ♫ 20:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.