Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/EVE Online

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EVE Online[edit]

A great deal of hard work has gone into making this article a very nice one. I think it shows what Wikipedia can produce when people work together. --Xander the Potato Vanquisher 16:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object lots of external jumps, no footnotes. Rlevse 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Per above and several short sections and subsections, along with a short lead. I suggest copyediting the whole article, getting it to GA status and having it undergo a peer review. Slof 19:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Object - Good article, no referencing --GoOdCoNtEnT 06:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - As much as I like seeing CVG articles up for FA, I'm going to have to object. Chrono Trigger and FFX-2 are also up for FA status- and have 57 and 46 references, respectively. That's probably more than would be needed for this article, but you need more than 0. --PresN 15:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. The article does not have any inline citations and the pictures do not have fair use rationales written for them. -- Underneath-it-All 18:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of our images now have fair-use rationales with them. Also, there are inline citations in sections we have been able to find resources for. --Xander the Potato Vanquisher 13:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations for this article may have to do with the nature of the game. Much of the information presented this article is from first-hand experience. Active players of the game write for this article. EVE-Online lacks a comprehensive explaination of in-game features that can be cited. I would beg the community to keep this in mind. --Xander the Potato Vanquisher 15:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that just means you have to look harder, because first-hand experience is Original Research, and you can't have that if you want FA status. If you can't find any outside sources, it may not be able to ever be FA status. I'll go through it in a second and see if I can find things that "should" have some sort of external source. --PresN 16:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) published from May to December 2003 by Simon & Schuster Interactive
2) fter which CCP purchased the rights back and began a digital distribution scheme
3) The Background section is a screen long for me, and is covered by 1 source. Granted, that source is the official background page of the game, but maybe somewhere there's another source? Anywhere? Dunno, it just looks bad to me.
  • Added many more references for the storyline section and broke it up into a discussion of the races in the EVE universe.
4) Players can engage in many tasks a few of the major ones being... (even a review would be fine there)
5) The servers have a scheduled daily downtime between 11:00 and 12:00 GMT (maybe a cite? Not very crucial if you can't find one.)
6) Advancement section- there has to be somewhere that they describe the skill tree and such- a manual, an online short manual, a review of the game somewhere...
7) Players can barter between themselves for items, or may use the extensive in-game market system for ISK-based transactions
8) Combat and SIS sections- same as Advancement
9) same for Death and Jump Clones
10) EVE currently costs €14.95 / $14.95 a month
11) Those who are playing EVE Online can send 14-day trials to their friends via...
12) Patches- probably find cites from main website, you only have them for the Kali patch
13) Milestones need cites
These are just what a quick run through found. You have 14 in line cites at the moment, you should have at least 30-40 for an article of this size to get FA status. --PresN 17:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. 1) References are impressive but can still be improved. Try to incorporate all academic references to the game: see this. Also, those books would probably provide enough references to pass the article on the 'references' criteria.2) Further comments: I'd merge 'Major Content Patches', 'Graphics Engine and Windows Vista' (stubsection) and 'Milestones' (list') under one subsection, 'History' of 'Development', which would discuss how the game was designed and how it has changed since (and what is planned). 3) Perhaps one of the biggest issues: not comprehensive: I would also like to see a section on the community: notable alliances, famous players, fansites. Community makes or breaks MMORPGs, and currently the article ignores this important aspect.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Oh, much better on the cites. I'd suggest changing "Serenity and the Chinese EVE-Online" by taking out the line "The developers have blogged on some of challenges involved.[34]" and moving that cite up to the first sentence "As discussed in the recent dev blog with LeKjart,". It's a little confusing to not have the cite there, only for it to pop up a paragraph later, I had to check to make sure it was the same blog. Other than that, I'd still like more cites in the gameplay section, the parts of my above comment that you haven't struck out yet. Get that done, and I'll change it to support. --PresN 15:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/EVE_Online&oldid=1066816395"