Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MMORPG/archive2

MMORPG

It has been about a year since the last nomination and the article has been improved further. Although the article is relatively long, this is becoming an increasingly important subject (with over 15 million worldwide players of MMORPGs, according to industry estimates) that I believe justifies the length. The quality of the prose and content has improved during this time.

Previous comments are here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MMORPG/archive1

Tarinth 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

object article had 5 citation needed tags in it before the FAC even started. Lacks real inline citations in general... just 4 external links used to cite facts throughout the entire article. See WP:CITE. --W.marsh 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object - It isn't long at all... heck with all the markup it's only 35k! However, It's barely referenced, which is a a huge problem. Almost NOTHING is cited. In a moment, I'll go through the article and tag everything that needs a citation. Expect it to be a lot. Fieari 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC) -- Actually, I take it back. I won't mark it up, because almost EVERY SENTENCE requires a cite in this article, and NONE OF THEM HAVE ONE. I've used the {{unreferenced}} tag instead to cover the whole article. Also, in looking through it more closely, the prose leaves much to be desired, and though I agree that MMORPGs are an encyclopedic topic, the language used is not encyclopedic. Also: why on earth is there talk about WOW's Korean playerbase in the lead section? Why is this notable enough to be in the lead, as this is not an article about WOW in specific, but MMORPGs in general? Fieari 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment on the length was in responses to the archived FaC comments that included a complaint about the article being too long.Tarinth 22:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought article titles weren't supposed to have abbreviations in them? Rlevse 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MMORPG is the most commonly used form of the concept, few do people refer to a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Also, there should be some more citations in the MMORPG article... a lot more.

Common only to those who play it. Most people will have no idea what it means.Rlevse 00:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms and abbreviations are only to be used in situations where the acronym has become a word, such as SCUBA, LASER, or NATO. MMORPG is not that recognizable to the general English speaker. Jay32183 04:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object I agree that lack of referencing is a serious problem. There's also quite a few fair-use screenshots and some aren't even the best quality. While the article covers many aspects, it lacks a strong lead section and over all organization. Shell ^babelfish 06:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a couple of references, and rewrote the lead paragraph slightly, but there's not enough here to make a FA yet. Article needs a LOT of work. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 16:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object & comment nomination should be retracted. It's not a bad article but it clearly fails on references alone and it's just not ready. It could be sent to peer review instead. Pascal.Tesson 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for AID. Clearly not ready. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 20:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object: I object as per User:Shell_Kinney. He has stated just about everything I need to say except that if I created the article, I would look to combine some of the shorter sections, such as "Browser-based MMORPGs" and "Genre challenges". Not that I would combine those two specifically, just to merge those in with another section (possibly).-Hairchrm 03:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]