I wanted to get this looked at by others before I nominate for the FAC. I think it is well developed and would like some feedback. Thunderbrand 19:04, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• a) it's slightly too long; given that it's heading for FA, and will probably be expanded according to people's requests, it's definitely the time to start thinking about ways to reduce length; be careful with wording, remove any repetition (I couldn't find much unfortunately) b) there are many statements which could do with clear sourcing, consider a system of inline references such as footnotes or invisible notes. c) there are "some players" which would be better attributed to specific players (or "some players such as Jeff Jones((ref|Jones-2004))") d) read carefully the style guides about langage; some of it needs to be tightened up. Mozzerati 21:21, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

It's kind of funny, actually. A bunch of us got together and talked about how to trim down the article. We got rid of some stuff like the weapons and enemies. I'll try to throw in some sources. Thunderbrand 23:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree about the length issue. As is, the amount of detail is a bit excessive for an article about a single version in a series of games. Move the detail the daughter articles if you must, but this article needs a more compact treatment, IMO. --mav 00:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, we got it shortened up a lot more. It is much more managable now. Thunderbrand 19:28, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Its a good article, nicely written. however, there seems to be several irrelevant things mentioned in the article. I don't see the need for a list of the deathmatch maps for the game. It seems to be a very minor detail that takes up alot of space. Also, in the post-release controversies, several facts mentioned don't seem at all important. "Reports of auto-save crashes and audio stuttering from some users. Patches have been..." is a minor bug that didn't affect everyone and has since been fixed. "An update released on November 30, 2004, which inadvertently prevented scores.." barely affected people for a day before it was fixed. At the same time I feel the article is missing information about the game's critical praise. Alot is said about plot holes, complaints by players and the game's technical problems and little is said about why the game is considered good. Other missing information is how well the game has sold. MechBrowman 17:27, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess they aren't really as important now, but I think it's worth mentioning it, and since most of it was moved to a new page to free up space, it doesn't really bother me. As for the sales figures, the only info I can find is the amount that they sold from Nov-Jan, which is 1.7 million, not including Steam. Valve hasn't released any new info recently, though. And finally, the article mentins "plot holes", right under the chapters section entitled "Notes". Thunderbrand 20:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)