Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Solarquest/archive1

Solarquest[edit]

Fantabulous article about the most splendiferous game in the galaxy. Kaptain Krunk 12:04, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object – no references, images are too large, sections have hardly any content. Ref to Peer Review. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Refer to peer review, 1) lead is too short 2) Article doesn't contain games project info box 3) there's too many large fair use pictures without a reason on why it has been claimed fair use 4) I don't think you need 3 images of the game board and accessoiries. One will suffice to illustrate it and avoid a lot of copyright problems. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:11, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Object—Lacking in content; superficial. Simply describing the features of a game and wacking in a few pictures does not make a featured article. Try writing an article on a whole class of such games, and saying something a little more useful about them, if you want to author a FA. Tony 13:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Send to peer review -- This needs a peer review. Then maybe it will survive voting. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:53, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not yet FA standard. Much of it is a description of the game and its rules. Before resubmitting this, compare it to the Monopoly article, which is a Featured Article. The difference is staggering. Granted, Solarquest does not have the history that Monopoly has, but still. There needs to a be a dramatic reorganisation of the article (put all the "gameplay and rules" stuff together, have one history section, not bits of history scattered through the article). As people have said, peer review may be the best way to have a fresh start for this article. Batmanand 14:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, a lot of articles placed on Peer Review used to not get enough feedback to make it worthwhile, but maybe involvement in Peer Review has improved in the past six months. 205.217.105.2 16:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]