I looked up this article today as my first choice for reading one of the articles listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing pre-2008 FAs. I am not a fan of the Devil May Cry video games, but I just read this article because of "Reviewing pre-2008 FAs" and found it to be below Featured Article (FA) standards. Before explaining the issues here, I thought of the article as a whole compared to the contemporary FA. I checked the article again, just for verifying if I was right on the flaws I identified. My earliest findings on this article, "Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening", are that it needs additional references/soruces, has prose issues, and must be expanded. And the lead does not talk about the development of the game. The article also sometimes gets into mediocre grammar.
I am not the first user to report the problems with this article. Tezero created "Devil May Cry 3: Just telling you", a section on the talk page of Caribbean H.Q. (who was known as "Dark Dragon Flame" back when he developed the article into an FA in 2007) in which Tezero asserts it needs sourcing, has got to have a screenshot, and is "among the most likely WP:VG articles to get nominated for an FAR." He also says: "The second and third paragraphs of Gameplay are particularly glaring." So indeed yes, "Devil May Cry 3" has an Featured Article Review (FAR).
I've copied this text from the article's talk page to WT:VG, and then to this page with alterations, so that more people are aware of this. I nominated this article for FAR because it does not meet current FA standards, and no-one immediately responded to the text beforehand.
Let's see how "DMC 3" works with the FA criteria:
A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. The use of citation templates is not required.
Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
"Devil May Cry 3" does not meet 1a (instances of improper prose, unnessecary formatting, and mediocre grammar), 1b (not enough detail about the subject), 2a (lead ignores the development part and contains unnessecary detail of cutscenes and full-motion videos), 2c (needs additional citations/references/sources), 3 (no game screenshots with fair use rationale template and/or images of Capcom staff) (I thanked Igordebraga for uploading two game screenshots with "Non-free use rationale" templates, the article now meets 3), and 4 (needs expansion). IX|(C"<) 06:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
When I see a problem fixed, I can "strike" (<s>text</s>) a part of the "does not meet" paragraph. IX|(C"<) 23:33, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for misspelling "unnecessary". IX|(C"<) 07:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Lots of text here. Can you elaborate on which parts of the article need expansion? I didn't see it mentioned czar ♔ 14:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
The lead has three paragraphs, all short and not comprehensive enough. The "Gameplay" section needs more details (if any). The "Development" section has got to be expanded. The "Sales" section is apparently incomplete. These particular four sections all need proper expansion. IX|(C"<) 15:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Delegate note - As there was no article talk page notification prior to this FAR (which is required, please see the FAR instructions), I am placing this review on hold. If the article is not improved significantly during the hold period, the review may be brought back to FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
As no significant improving edits have been made to the article during the hold period, I am now reopening the FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The DMC3 article talk page has a proper talk page notification. I wasn't the first editor to notice the issues the article had, but I raised them, and I discussed with other users about the article's poor quality. However, we moved on to dealing with featured/good content instead of improving the DMC3 article with edits, and the article was edited 4 times after I started the FAR. That's very little improvement to the article during the week-long "wait" period. IX|(C"<) 23:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
DMC3 hasn't been edited since February 18, 2014. Igordebraga just uploaded images, adding them to the article. IX|(C"<) 06:12, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment: I wonder if we could request a copyedit for the article. I don't think the prose is that bad; I just notice some awkward phrasings, mainly in Gameplay. The best way I can describe it is that it looks like it was written by someone who doesn't play games or know much about them but is vaguely interested in them from a business perspective. And yeah, the screenshots are definitely appreciated. The only other major issues I think remain are the non-comprehensive intro and Reception section. Tezero (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
It's almost three weeks since this FAR started, and I see almost no copyedit to the DMC3 article. Hopefully, the GOCE March backlog elimination drive started today and goes on until March 31, 2014. IX|(C"<) 23:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Delist, assuming a substantial copyedit isn't made. Tezero (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you. IX|(C"<) 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
So yes, DMC3 has gone to FARC. If no real big improvements occur during the FARC stage, the article's no longer FA. IX|(C"<) 01:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Over a week after this FAR became an FARC, only 2 edits have been done to the article: the first one was apparent vandalism from an IP, and the second just a revert by a bot. No improvements done with those edits, and the GOCE request has seen almost no response so far. IX|(C"<) 04:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
FAR is almost over, so far very little progress to the article has had been made. IX|(C"<) 01:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Just Delist due to a lack of progress. Mr*|(60nna) 21:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no experience with FAs but if I can help with something just tell me.Tintor2 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
It's been 3 weeks after the FARC stage began. Still almost no progress. Do we need to close this review with a Delist consensus? Mr*|(60nna) 17:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Can you stop doing that? The delegates know when its time to close a review. Your constant notifications on everything does not help this review get done any faster. GamerPro64 17:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I won't do that anymore here. Mr*|(60nna) 18:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll give the article a careful copyedit over the next day or two. All the best, Miniapolis 20:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Finally, there's a copyeditor. Mr*|(60nna) 22:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)