Please be calm and civil when you make comments or when you present evidence, and avoid personal attacks. Please be patient as we work toward resolution of the issues in a peaceful, respectful manner.
Spore (2008 video game) was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I removed the one-million sold sentence from the "Reception" section because it stated at 2.5 weeks, one million worldwide were sold, while the very next sentence said at three weeks, two million were sold. Not likely sales doubled between 2.5 and 3 weeks. Both had references, but the first reference is now broken, while the second reference did still work, so I picked the second sentence. If the first sentence was mis-quoted and still has a valid source that has moved, please correct my changes and its reference  - (url=http://www.ea.com/read/20080924-sporemillion.xml |title=Spore Begins With a Big Bang! One Million Games Sold and 25 Million Creations Uploaded|accessdate=2008-10-15|date=2008-09-24|publisher=Electronic Arts)
Reference for reception of Spore by Educators
I wrote an article published in peer reviewed science education journal on both the controversy around spore in education. The paper suggests that despite the problematic representation of evolution that there is good reason to believe that the game is acting as a catalyst to engage its players to learn more about evolution.
As I wrote this particular article I didn't want to just directly add it to the Spore page. Figured I would post this note here and anyone interested could weave it in.
Thanks for asking! Although it's clearly relevant, I can't quite put a coherent edit together from the abstract, I'm afraid, and I'm loathe to add a non-free source as an external link. Since your article is at least partly a response to the Science article, I think there's room to add a "however" clause to that discussion in the this wikipedia article. Perhaps you could suggest a suitable quote from your article which would work and I'll look into adding it. GDallimore (Talk) 16:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
As far as something one could say, this might be one option. While there are real problems with how the game models scientific phenomena there is reason to believe that "the simple toy-like environment Spore provides is serving as a springboard to engage with scientific ideas outside the game." (That is on page 11) Thanks for your help and consideration.--Tjowens (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The article's section entitled "scientific" accuraccy misquoted the articles it cited; sometimes this was just one word in a quote such as "seriously messed up" when Dr. Plum claimed that spore's evolutionary process was "severely messed up" 
A more serious error was quoting the wrong biologist! The article only quoted Dr. Near when it used the "severely messed up" line, when Dr. Prum was originally quoted in the NY Times Article (Dr. Prum and Dr. Near were both quoted in the same paragraph in the NY Times article)
I have edited that particular section of the article so that it is no longer misquoting a source; there are probably more however, and others should therefore look into this.