Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Minecraft/archive1

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

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 23:20, 26 August 2013 [1].

---

Minecraft

Nominator(s): Deadbeef 18:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced and well-written, and passes all FA criteria. A recent peer review yielded no outstanding problems with the article. Deadbeef 18:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Did you let User:FutureTrillionaire be aware of this nomination since he got the article promoted to Good Article status? GamerPro64 19:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Done Deadbeef 19:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The game is still in ongoing development, as well as all its versions. This wasn't "stable" by GA criteria (see further), and it certainly isn't stable now. Several ports are still upcoming. I don't expect the article to be kept up to the FA standard even if it passes. I might be wrong, and this was brought up in GA with expectation article would be kept in date and shape, and since then many of the new sources/updates have not been added or added improperly despite ample time. There are such basic things as punctuation errors, unitalicized titles, spelling errors in various names, unpiped/mispiped redirects, wrong dashes, etc. This is before we even go into prose and content. The game has had one of the biggest receptions ever, yet the section is smaller than many other games with lesser reception. The article talks about more than 4 versions of Minecraft, makes notes about one, omits same info about others, mixes info in wrong places and with other versions. (Almost each version could pass for an article under GNG, yet they are all compressed here.) I see at least two sources with close paraphrasing and sources that don't directly support the text, where new info was added but references never updated. The lead doesn't even mention some material that has sections devoted to it. The before-mentioned NFCC. With so much going on I doubt the nominator can bring the article to a level that is expected from a FA, especially since they have not been a major contributor recently. No offense, but long-standing editors with many FACs behind their back would be daunted here. PR said "give me a good starting point in trying to improve it" and I didn't really comment there, as I expected major editing to follow. In summary, the article is not ready and we are not under a deadline here. I'm sorry I don't have time to go through every issue like I usually do, but I don't feel the article has been improved enough (or games even released in stable form) to warrant it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• Procedural close- I admire the nominator's ambitions, but neither Hellknowz nor me (two significant contributors) were consulted on whether the article was ready for FAC. That being said, the GA criteria for stability refers to edit wars, something the article does not experience frequently. However, the FA criteria for stability states that the article's "content does not change significantly from day to day". The upcoming versions of the game might cause some significant changes to the article, so I agree with Hellknowz that starting a FAC now is premature. I also agree that the article also suffers from a number of other problems that can't be resolved quickly.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

• It seems that a withdrawal is in order. I am completely new to the FA process; I was under the impression that getting through peer review without any unresolved problems meant an expected nom at FAC. I'll support a closure, and hopefully the article will eventually find its way back here. Deadbeef 03:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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