204:, it does not mean that the development section of this page can be this short. It also does not fully explain the game's long development. How the game was designed is also important, even though it ended up to become a terrible game. Reception section uses too many quotes, and the article has quite many one-sentence paragraphs, which are discouraged. The article is not supported by reliable sources, (which was already mentioned by Czar), and the citations are inconsistently formatted. Some information are written in a confusing way (such as the "First Access Club") as well. Normally I would not quick-fail others if the nominator has worked on the article. Seeing it as a "drive-by" nomination, I am not convinced that the article would get improved in a short period of time. I am very sorry to say that I am going to quick-fail this article this time. You can put the article to
211:
42:
228:
Thanks for the advice and the quick review, guys. It seemed like a well-written article to me at the time, but obviously I didn't look carefully enough. I'll definitely look harder the next time I try to do something like this. I don't have much time at the moment, so it might take a while for me to
199:
Czar has basically summarized what I wanted to say. The entire gameplay section being unsourced, as well as the presence of two unsourced paragraphs in the development and marketing section are not really acceptable for a good article nomination. Even though there is a page called
181:
I don't think this needs a full review—it's missing basic stuff: a lede that reflects the text, a sourced gameplay section, proper reliable sources instead of forum links and random websites. I suggest that the nominator take a look at the links in the
208:, and I may be able to give you some more comments that are more in-depth. Feel free to nominate the article again after you have fixed all the issues, and I will be happy to review it again.
47:
80:
70:
126:
122:
52:
107:
99:
75:
201:
156:
234:
115:
17:
218:
171:
150:
230:
92:
183:
214:
167:
146:
205:
238:
222:
194:
175:
160:
187:
134:
103:
210:
8:
30:
61:
33:
7:
229:fix everything. No hard feelings :)
24:
202:Development of Duke Nukem Forever
209:
239:14:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
223:14:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
195:14:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
176:12:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
161:12:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
254:
18:Talk:Duke Nukem Forever
184:good article criteria
89:
88:
245:
213:
212:
192:
166:I'll take this.
139:
130:
111:
43:Copyvio detector
31:
253:
252:
248:
247:
246:
244:
243:
242:
188:
120:
97:
91:
85:
57:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
251:
249:
226:
225:
197:
165:
140:
87:
86:
84:
83:
78:
73:
67:
64:
63:
59:
58:
56:
55:
53:External links
50:
45:
39:
36:
35:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
250:
241:
240:
236:
232:
224:
220:
216:
207:
203:
198:
196:
193:
191:
185:
180:
179:
178:
177:
173:
169:
163:
162:
158:
155:
152:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
82:
79:
77:
74:
72:
69:
68:
66:
65:
60:
54:
51:
49:
46:
44:
41:
40:
38:
37:
32:
26:
19:
227:
189:
164:
153:
143:
142:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
90:
81:Instructions
215:AdrianGamer
206:peer review
168:AdrianGamer
147:AdrianGamer
104:visual edit
48:Authorship
34:GA toolbox
144:Reviewer:
71:Templates
62:Reviewing
27:GA Review
231:Daß Wölf
157:contribs
76:Criteria
127:history
108:history
94:Article
136:Watch
16:<
235:talk
219:talk
190:czar
186:. –
172:talk
151:talk
123:edit
100:edit
237:)
221:)
174:)
159:)
125:|
106:|
102:|
233:(
217:(
170:(
154:·
149:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.