The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 19:34, 4 April 2011 [1].

Devil May Cry 2[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Featured article candidates/Devil May Cry 2

Featured article review/Devil May Cry 2/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Notified: Deckiller, Chensiyuan, WikiProject Video games

Comprehensiveness issues

Article fails 1(b) (comprehensiveness). This is an article on a highly-publicized 2003 video game. With the Internet plus print sources. There is currently nothing from any print sources (i.e. PlayStation Magazine, Game Informer, Electronic Gaming Monthly, GamePro, and so on), in which there would definitely have been. A video game article like this should certainly have much more than 11KB of readable prose.

WP:NFCC issues

Article fails FA criterion 3
All images currently fail WP:NFCC#8; that is, none of the fair-use rationales clearly spell out how they increase readers' understanding of the article as opposed to the prose alone; merely saying that the images are "informative" is not enough.
To say the least, having both File:Dmc2dantesword.jpg and File:Dmc2dantedt.jpg are not necessary; one of them needs to go, as they are both gameplay images which are showing the exact same thing.
On the same reasoning as above, having two pictures of Dante and Lucia (File:Dante & Lucia.JPG and File:Dmc2diesel.jpg) are likewise not necessary, and one of them needs to go.

Verifability issues

Article fails 1(c) (well-researched and verifiable). There are large portions of unverified content all over the article. Citation formatting is very inconsistent.

Prose

I would (though weakly) claim that this fails 1(a) (well-written); I can't put a finger on it, but the prose leaves a little more to be determined. Perhaps it's because I was looking for full, complete paragraphs (such as like in the Plot section, which I think is one of the decently-written sections here).

For the reasons stated above, I feel this article does not currently meet the standards for Featured Articles at this time and recommend delisting until it does. –MuZemike 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment - This review is being placed on hold until the required talk page notification has been made and a sufficient amount of time expired for interested editors to comment. Dana boomer (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As little work has been completed on the article in the intervening time, despite the talk page notification, this review is now being relisted and may proceed as normal. Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say strengthening the remaining image rationales is important; I'm still not entirely sold on the utility of File:Dmc2diesel.jpg; unless there were reviewer comments on it I think we can just replace it with better text. Jimmy brought up some sources that could be used. The gameplay is mostly good although it doesn't properly introduce some elements, a minor rewrite should fix that. The biggest issue is the relatively scant reception and development information. I think Jimmy's sources once integrated might be enough for the reception, but that still leaves the game creation. Other minor issues: incomplete refs (missing work and/or publisher fields). There's a 404 on one of the refs, but since that's pointing to a print mirror anyhow replacing it with the proper citation info and cutting the URL altogether would be sufficient. I'm not sure how much time I'll have, but I'll try and address at least the minor things mentioned above, starting with the images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there have been no protests I've removed the questionable image. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the criticisms. It is very light in content, and I'm certain that it is far from complete in terms of reception and the general history of the game. The lead seems very light, has references in it, and in general, the gameplay section lacks references to verify much of it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include references, prose, comprehensiveness and images. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - Compared to other FA Video Game articles, it doesn't look up to standard. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I think the images issue is addressed, but I don't have the time to try and bring this guy up to snuff on the more critical issues. As written it fails the comprehensiveness criterion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. I contemplated making the appropriate fixes, but I don't know or care enough about the series to get interested (though strange coming from someone who's written quite a few articles on pretty average games). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – The article strikes me as slight compared to the video games articles I've seen at FAC lately, in terms of sources more so than just length. It feels like more could be done with it, and I agree with those citing 1b. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – agree as it stands there are deficiencies in reception. Not sure how long this will remain here and will revise if work is done on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - per the concerns by GamerPro64, New Age Retro Hippie and David Fuchs. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.