Talk:Halo 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Halo 4 has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 24, 2014 Good article nominee Not listed
April 7, 2015 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to a Halo-related article.


A disambiguation link should be included to differentiate it from the movie "Halo 4". Jbottoms76 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn? I can't find much evidence it was ever referred to in common usage as just Halo 4 (for obvious reasons.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

RTX vs Rooster teeth expo[edit]

I don't really care a great deal, but it would be nice if we discussed any changes here rather than edit warring. It seems at least one of the references calls it rooster teeth expo. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Watch this : , the Creators of/people whom organize the event clearly state that RTX stands for nothing. Jump to 1:13:55 and you can quote Gus Sorola. (THE CREATOR AND MANAGER OF THE EVENT) and the wikipedia page for the event doesn't even say the word expo once, it doesn't matter how many sources you have that call it expo, if the creator and owner of an event says its not called that than its not, that would be like me arguing the microsoft's real name is apple even though i know bill gates calls it microsoft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Good article nomination[edit]

I believe this article is ready to be a good article so I have just nominated it for good article status.--BarsofGold (talk) 04:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Is a reliable source?[edit]

I'm unsure if the last sentence in the Critical Reception section is reliably sourced. It says: "Halo 4 had the fastest amount of population drop off for online play for any Halo game, with the total online population dropping below 300,000 players 8 days after release." The sources of information are a NeoGAF forum post and an IGN article which both cite data provided by Halocharts. I don't know how Halocharts obtains their data so I'm unsure if this analysis is reliable or accurate. The1337gamer (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Link to Sin (song)[edit]

I deleted the hatnote on top, but it was reverted by another editor citing WP:HATNOTE. However, Hatnote only appears to be a how-to guide; it doesn't seem to provide rules for whether an obscure, alternate name (and boy is it ever) truly warrants a mention on an article overwhelmingly more popular insofar as you could make the case that no one would ever search for the former. May we discuss this here? --DawnDusk (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

  • @DawnDusk: The song is referred to as "Halo 4" as well, thus the hatnote. However, I would have thought that guideline would have stated the need for a hatnote. In a case like this, the only other option would be to create a disambiguation page with only two entries, which is usually not done per WP:TWODABS and WP:TWODAB. And, as you have sort of said and which I agree with, the game is obviously the primary topic over the song (which is just a pseudonym), so thus the hatnote (instead of creating a disambiguation page). Steel1943 (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Also, now that I've looked at WP:HATNOTE, I should have cited WP:SIMILAR for the reason I reverted that edit. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Regardless of it being an obscure alternate title, it would be included anyway? I see; this makes sense (though I disagree with it and don't fully understand those pseudonyms). Thanks for clearing it up! --DawnDusk (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
@DawnDusk: Regarding those pseudonyms ... yeah, I don't get them either! Face-confused.svg Steel1943 (talk) 03:08, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Halo 4/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 21:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed this back in August. I should complete this by tomorrow Jaguar 21:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments[edit]


  • "The game has been supported post-launch with bug fixes, updates, and downloadable content (DLC)" - is this really worth mentioning? Surely every game now has patches and updates given to them
Removed this sentence. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "A sequel, Halo 5: Guardians, is set to be released for the Xbox One in 2015" - it's due to come out on the 27th October this year, so that might be worth mentioning
Added this along with a reference. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The lead summarises the article well (improving since last time), so this meets the GA criteria


  • "Four years after the events of Halo 3, Forward Unto Dawn" - should be UNSC Forward Unto Dawn in its first mention only, since it's a ship (yeah I'm a Halo nerd). I think the same can apply to the Infinity
Added UNSC before the name of both ships on first mention. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The first paragraph in the Development section sounds wrong. Bungie became independent in 2007 but still managed to produce two games between 2008-2010 (ODST and Reach), but this paragraph makes it sound like they stopped making Halo straight after they split with Microsoft
I've reworded this. Hopefully it is better now. Do say if it needs to be clearer. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Be careful, the third (larger) paragraph in the Development is lacking citations. It has a pile of citations at the very end of the paragraph instead of having them evenly spread
Fixed this. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "Reception towards Spartan Ops was less favourable than multiplayer and campaign" - favorable, assuming this has to stay consistant with AmEng
Fixed this. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


  • Impressive. The toolserver picks up no dead links given an article this extensive
  • I noticed a couple of YouTube references in this article. Per WP:VG/RS, YouTube is only acceptable as a reference if it cites the relevant information and is from its official channel only, in this case it would be 343 Industries. I would safely lose these (if you plan on FACing) but it's your call if you want to keep these in. I think another reviewer would urge to remove them, but from where I see it they're official and should be okay
I'll look into sorting this out tomorrow. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Replaced all YouTube references. The1337gamer (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

It looks like this has improved since I reviewed in last in August, so well done on that. If those issues above can be clarified then it looks like this shouldn't have a problem with passing the GAN. I'll leave this on hold for the standard seven days, good luck Good article on hold Jaguar 22:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing them all, I'm confident this meets the GA criteria now. Looks like we're good to go Good article Jaguar 08:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)