Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Magic: The Gathering/Archive

Magic: The Gathering

Quite extensive. Perhaps it it a bit to long (~40k atm) and should be split into subarticles? Still, looks like a quite good FA material to me. What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Zerbey 00:02, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. violet/riga (t) 00:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for now  ALKIVAR™ here's my reasoning:
  1. intro section too long (shouldnt be more than 1 or 2 paras)

     Nonsense. The introduction is fine. Typically, an introction is said to be too long if it is over a page of text, and this is nowhere even close. →Raul654 02:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

     at 800x600 it does go over a page on screen, hence my reasoning.  ALKIVAR™ 02:43, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

     I actually agree with Alivar. That lead section is actually too long. It needs a bit of shortening - not much, but this is still an actionable concern. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  2. history seems awful brief.
  3. game play should be shortened and split into sub articles, this isnt a HOW-TO article.
  4. is the section on secondary markets really necessary?
  5. artwork is very brief, needs to be beefed up a bit (I originally collected for the artwork, so did many of my friends)
  6. controversy should be spun off into a stub and expanded, theres been a lot of it and this brief mention doesnt do it justice in my opinion.
  7. needs a few more references
  8. external links are extensive and should be split into groups.
• No opinion for now. I concur with User:Alkivar's comments on controversy, artwork and secondary market sections. The article is a fine one but needs re-sectioning and maybe emphasis should be distributed more evenly between the sections. But I disagree with User:Alkivar on references: it is absurd to add references that weren't used just for the article to look more "professional/credible". Could said user point us to specific statements in the article that could be questioned and aren't mentioned in one of the sources/external links? Phils 00:53, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  its not a matter of whether I question anything, but a 2nd source for a group of same information is generally a good idea for a FA, its not a "FAC requirement" but it is a good idea.  ALKIVAR™ 02:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added the printed references checking on Amazon. I couldn't find any others - hopefully somebody else can. But 2-3 printed books is enough for FA I belive, and please note there is a reather extensive section of external links as a counterweight. As a (former, but...) player, I do think that the secondary market section is necessary, it is an important part of the game. The game play should not be shortened, but moving most of it to another article (Rules of...or sth like this) is a good idea. I agree with the other comments, though, they should be applied before this article gets FA status. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support, although I do support making a sub-article for gameplay and controversies and expanding the artwork section as suggestions, as Alkivar suggests. I also disagree on references as Phils does. Cool Hand Luke 10:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - not all references are sourced in this document! For instance, there is an external link to "Where have all the Demons Gone", but this source is not cited in the references section. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:47, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - I still think this reads too much like a player's manual, and does not cover enough of the encyclopedic topics. Only a small mention is given to the controversy over occult topics, and not enough is given to the controversy over the encouragement of childhood gambling. Also, there is very little on the economy of what turned out to be a very expensive game- the Expense section should give some concept of the actual dollar values of expensive and rare. I think it would also be necessary to mention links to other collection games both of the time and of the current day (POG, Pokemon, Yu-gi-oh, whatever), and the impact that Magic had on existing Sports Card games (hint: it was large [1]. Finally, this article is missing a timeline. Though Magic is still popular in some sense, it does not have as large a following as it did in 1997. I think this article will always be incomplete without some sort of timeline chronicling the popularity and major events in the series. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. The article definitely needs more info in the history section, and it would be nice if some sub articles were created to carry all the extraneous info, but overall it looks fairly good. Hmmm... I guess it's just missing that je ne sais quoi that would put it over the edge. I'll change my vote to 'support' if someone addresses the issues brought up by Gorgias et al. Eric Herboso 22:38, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)