Talk:Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn

Notability

I'm curious why this promotion has its own article instead of a section within Halo 4. How is it notable independent of H4's purview? czar · · 08:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I think it's notable enough, consider Mortal Kombat: Legacy, a live-action web series for a video game. This is a far bigger project, and it is getting it's own commercial release. The article currently needs alot of expansion, i.e. plot/development sections (I would expand it but I don't much time currently), alot of detail can be included here that wouldn't be suitable as a subsection of the Halo 4 article. Developers have said it's more than just a promotional tool for Halo 4 and bare in mind Marketing of Halo 3 had it's own article. The1337gamer (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Forward Unto Dawn is showing to be very popular. Achieving over a million views per episode on Youtube just after each parts first day of release. The sheer budget of the project coupled with the significance of a live action Halo project as a Halo film has been on and off for several years. Third-party sources for Forward Unto Dawn will rise quickly once all the parts and the whole film has been released. Jonjonjohny (talk) 17:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The question is, are there third party sources about its reception? Thus far I haven't seen much. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

IGN reviews: Part 1, Part 2, OXM reviews: Part 1, Part 2, Digital Spy reviews: Part 1, Part 2. The1337gamer (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

On the summary for episode their is an error. At the beginning of Halo 4 Thomas Lasky is a Commander serving under Captain Andrew Del Rio, not a captain. 124.170.72.160 (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it known who the two unnamed Spartans on the Pelican are portrayed by? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.33.55.162 (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The female Spartan is Kelly-087, she is portrayed by actress Jenna Berman. The male Spartan is Frederic-104, he is portrayed by Tony Giroux. The1337gamer (talk) 09:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

References

Adding a list of useful links for future expansion:

Interviews/Development: Halo After Dawn series, Exec producer interview 1, Exec producer interview 2, Exec producer interview 3, Cast interview, Cudmore interview, Cudmore inteview 2, Hendler interview, Hendler inteview 2, Frank O'Connor interview, IGN first look, Behind the Scenes: Warthog, SDCC panel - Hendler, Helbing, fxguide article

Reviews: IGN page, articles/reviews linked on page, OXMUK 1, OXMUK 2, OXMUK 3, OXMUK 4 DigiSpy 1, DigiSpy 2, DigiSpy 3, DigiSpy 4 IGN blu ray review, streamy award nomination

Other: Halo's Movie Potential, Merch internationl distribution

AWN articles: [1], [2], [3], [4]

GDC, GDC2

The1337gamer (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Being allowed to edit the article

I think the person you put it up was not smart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithv708 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a bot added semi-protection to the page when somebody incorrectly moved the Halo 4 article to this page. Semi-protection stops auto confirmed users for editing which is why you are unable to edit I think. Once your account is 4 days old and you have made 10 edits you should be able to edit the page. Alternatively, you can make an edit request or request the removal of semi-protection on the page so auto confirmed users can edit it. The1337gamer (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cerebellum (talk · contribs) 03:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I will be reviewing this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Good job overall, my only concern is with the sourcing.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose was a little rough in spots but I did some copy-editing and I think it looks good now. The treatment of fictional material is exemplary.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The references are mostly good, but a couple seem dubious. What makes Machinima Prime and Machinima.com reliable sources? I don't have a problem with youtube sources as long as they are reliable but those two seem sketchy to me. Also, the Mega Bloks and McFarlane Toys references are primary sources, I guess it's all right given what they are being used to support but if there is something else available it would be better.

   I added this "review" of the Mega Bloks kit, I think it's a decent source; they have an editorial team dedicated to the "geekdad" section of the website, even if it doesn't present much new information it's a secondary source to back up the info of the primary. Unfortunately for the McFarlane model I could only find these sort of things: [5][6], just the press release reworded. I think the Machinima and Machinima Prime sources are reliable because they are cast interviews, the opinions are those of the cast rather than those of the Machinima staff. Machinima didn't publish a review of the series and it would definitely not be reliable for that as they would have a massive COI as a distributor.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images are good and have appropriate fair-use rationales when necessary. Consider adding a picture or two of the actors if one is available.

   I considered that, but the poster contains the surviving characters, I'm not sure if it would be considered "minimal usage" to have another. There's this image of the cadets available, it doesn't have Master Chief, but readers could click on his article to see what he looks like. I added a caption to the poster to identify the characters in the mean time.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm putting this on hold for 7 days because of the sourcing issues. OK, your reasoning on the Machinima.com and Machinima Prime sources makes sense, you've resolved the mega bloks issue, and I'm fine with the McFarlane Toys press release if there is nothing else available. Good work, I'm happy to pass this.

Thanks for the review and copyedit. James086^Talk 12:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source: added to Netflix

czar · · 04:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitalizing "unto"

Shouldn't "unto" be lowercase (per MOS:CT)? It's a title preposition with four or less letters, and used as a preposition (forward until dawn). czar · · 04:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In this case, no. In the franchise Forward Unto Dawn is the name of a frigate in service under the UNSC.-- OsirisV (talk) 12:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this a film, a series or what?

The article is not clear about what this production really is. It starts saying it is a film. Then it mentions a series. Later on, out any context, it narrates the plot of several episodes.
I came here to learn what this was about, but ended up with more doubts than I previously had.