Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yahtzee/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yahtzee[edit]

Well written article with an amazing collection of photographs that walk the reader through the many stylistic phases of the game's popularity. Yahtzee is one of the tried and true favorite games in American culture. The packaging alone shows a good example of America's cultural change over the decades. - NickSentowski 19:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object Doesn't meet any FA criteria, suggest you run it first through peer review for detailed feedback. Sandy (Talk) 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per WP:SNOWSumoeagle179 22:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read WP:WIAFA It's got no references, for god's sake. -- Kicking222 23:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Object Not anywhere in the ballpark. I grew up playing Yahtzee (and chess and poker and Afghan 3-card-brag) and can't follow the article: "The player must roll at least three of a kind of all six die face values (or an equal to or greater score of other combinations so that the total is at least 63 points) to achieve a 35 point bonus." What? The introduction is particularly poorly done. If someone reads only the introduction, they should come out with an understanding of the game, include some background, some history, put it in context, is it played all over the world, was it a 60s/70s fad that went bust? Too much work needed for FA consideration right now. KP Botany 00:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. This article really needs some references to back up its assertions. The ratio of text to images is rather skewed: it's as much a gallery as it is an article - though I'm not aware of particular FA guidelines on that front. Adding citations would be a big improvement. Venicemenace 18:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the lead needs a second paragraph. This should contain a brief summary of the history and origins of the game. Inline refs are pretty well a prerequisite for an FA as well.Cas Liber 10:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]