Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fallout (video game)/archive2
- 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 July 2022 [1].
Fallout (video game)[edit]
Fallout is a 1997 role-playing video game developed and published by Interplay Productions for the PC. It was a critical success, with praise for its unique setting and gameplay compared to other role-playing games for the PC at the time. As a result, it spawned a successful series of role-playing games and is often credited as one of the games that revived the genre.
I started work on this article in April 2021, with a successful good article nomination in July 2021. Then, I started working on it again in March 2022 with hopes of turning it into a featured article for the 25th anniversary. To get the elephant in the room out of the way, my previous nomination that lasted from April to June 2022 failed, because only one review on the candidacy directly supported its promotion, with the others either being drive-by reviews or reviews that didn't vote. However, the article did improve during and after the previous candidacy, so hopefully, this candidacy will be different. Please, if you decide to review this article, please try to make it at least somewhat in-depth and vote. I do not want a repeat of the last candidacy. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: there are a couple of citations does not verify the text in the article, which is not good for a prospective FA. Most sources do verify the claims well, however. Spot-checking sources in this version, in FAC talk page here. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have addressed some of the requests and do plan on finishing later. Lazman321 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: I have now addressed all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, this is not what I meant. My point here is that you should go over the article and check all the references before FAC. If a spot-check like this cover this much issue, I don't think that the article is ready for FA just yet. There's plenty of time to fix this, however, and I am more than happy to do a spot-check again in a few weeks. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I have finished a source check here, and will be implementing changes to the article to address it soon. After I am done, you can go ahead and do a spot check. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: I am finished; you can go ahead a proceed with your second spot check now. Any problems you find should be few and far between or relatively minor. Lazman321 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll look into it later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Lazman321, seems good to me. Changed to support. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Alright, I'll look into it later. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: I am finished; you can go ahead a proceed with your second spot check now. Any problems you find should be few and far between or relatively minor. Lazman321 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I have finished a source check here, and will be implementing changes to the article to address it soon. After I am done, you can go ahead and do a spot check. Lazman321 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, this is not what I meant. My point here is that you should go over the article and check all the references before FAC. If a spot-check like this cover this much issue, I don't think that the article is ready for FA just yet. There's plenty of time to fix this, however, and I am more than happy to do a spot-check again in a few weeks. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- @CactiStaccingCrane: I have now addressed all your requests. Lazman321 (talk) 20:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have addressed some of the requests and do plan on finishing later. Lazman321 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Coord note -- Sorry Lazman, but with only one review after almost a month and no activity for a week, this nom has stalled so I'll be closing shortly. Given the relative lack of commentary, I'm prepared to waive the usual two-week pause before any re-nomination. You can, when re-nominating, ping editors who have commented at PR or previous FACs with neutrally worded invites to comment on the new nomination. Can I also suggest though that you try reviewing some of the other nominations in the current list? This can not only give you a better feel for the overall process but get you known in the community, which can sometimes result in more people being interested in reviewing your nom(s). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.