Talk:Turok: Dinosaur Hunter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.	CVG Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
	This is a selected article of WikiProject Video games.
	This article has an archived CVG peer review that may contain ideas for improvement.
CVG To-do: edit  Gaming Collaboration of the week: Imagic Expand: New CVG Articles, Normality, Pac-Man World 2, Operation Flashpoint: Elite, Call of Juarez, Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar, Ford Street Racing, Betrayal at Krondor CVG Peer Review: List of F-Zero titles, Kya: Dark Lineage, Wii Remote, Dynasty Warriors 4, The Sims 2, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, Kirby's Dream Land, Electronic sports, Fire Emblem, Dante (Devil May Cry), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XII, Sonic the Hedgehog (16-bit), Classes in World of Warcraft Cleanup: Age of Mythology, Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, Betrayal at Krondor, List of Nintendo trademarks Merge: Deletions / Essential articles / Magazines Assess and Prioritise articles (Log)

	This article is part of WikiProject Nintendo, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Nintendo related merchandise and video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Turok: Dinosaur Hunter (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Turok: Dinosaur Hunter has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The following users are actively contributing to this topic and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources: Thunderbrand (talk • contribs)

Contents 1 Name 2 Images? 3 Failed GA nomination 4 Second GA nomination on hold

[edit] Name

Wasn't this game actually called "Turok: Dinosaur Hunter"? If that was the official name, then the page should be moved. Thunderbrand 17:29, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, and it does make more sense for it to be there. I'll go ahead and move it now. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 20:50, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Images?

I thought maybe this could use some images of the enemies? The game had that unlockable built in gallery function, would that be within fair use? I have the PC version and could take screen shots...

Donatj 04:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article does need a couple images, but too many would violate the fair use policy. However, this article is just a list of weapons, enemies, and levels, and it needs a lot of work. I don't think just enemies would be that great. A screenshot showing off the distance fog or the graphics would probably be better. Thunderbrand 14:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA nomination

I have failed this as a Good Article for a number of reasons.

• The information on weaponry uses confusing wording. There are a couple of grammar mistakes in the reception section - "adds that is is", "more just than another Doom clone".
• The prose is very confusing to a non-specialist, or even a specialist. Here are just a few examples of this:

• The gameplay section contains almost no information on how the game is played, and instead lists enemies and weapons. Although it was stated the player needs to collect keys to get to the next level, it doesn't explain anything further than that.
• The plot section randomly brings up names that aren't explained. What is the "Chronoscepter"? What is a "focusing array"? If the player is controlling "Tal' Set", who is "Turok"?
• The reception section assumes the reader knows about the reviewers. What is IGN? What is GameSpot? What is Edge? There's also no information on the public reaction (sales) - an important aspect.
• In the reception section, Iguana is brought up in the article for the first time. I had to read the infobox to find out who they are. Mention the company in the lead, or maybe explain it - something like "Edge expresses that the developers, Iguana, use..."

• There's no information on the game's audio, a major aspect (and shown in almost all gaming Good Articles).
• Images. The only gameplay-related image is in an obscure location and doesn't really describe what a gameplay image should. Use a generic image showing a typical example of gameplay.

Remember, these are only specific issues. Look to generally improve the prose and increase the length of the article. Although I have knowledge of many gaming-related Good Articles and standards, this is one of the first GA reviews I have made. As such, if you don't agree with the problems I've given, you can easily contest it. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll try to make corrections, but I have to disagree with some of your statements. There is no audio section because there is no speaking dialogue in the game, and no music (except for the background music, which is pretty non-notable, as all it is is low-thumping tribal music most of the time.) I chose not to have that section since it would be only a sentence or two. I think the screenshot illustrates the gameplay fine. All you do is shoot enemies and collect stuff, and I wanted to show the viewer the distance fog and the player's low visibility. And I could not find anything about specific sales data. This game isn't a Halo or Zelda game and sales data is practically non-existant. Thunderbrand 04:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second GA nomination on hold

While most of the stuff from the first nom has been fixed, there are still a few issues that lingered:

• Grammar: "adds that is is"
• There is no section dealing with the games' sales figures. By doing a single google search, I was able to find that the game sold 973,167 copies, and that the game was the number one weekly rental for seven consecutive weeks and had made over $60 million as of June 25, 1997. I know that forum posts (the first link) are generally frowned upon, but the list seems genuine enough and the source is from IGN, according to the poster. If you work the above stuff and word your statements right, then it should be all right.

There are also a few new things that I spotted:

• The caption for the first gameplay image should be in the present tense (i.e. the game contains).
• In the infobox, you call the designer "David Dienstbier" but in the development section you call him "David Dinstbier". Is there an "e" in his name or not? As well, since according MobyGames he is the designer and producer (not project manager, that's a seperate job), and to fix a few grammatical issues, you should rephrase the sentence in the development section to something along the lines of

"Producer and game designer David Dienstbier stated that the Nintendo 64 was used due to its superior processing capabilites compared to the PC's available at the time, and to showcase the console's graphical abilities, although the game was later ported to the Windows platform."

Finally, where did Dienstbier say that? The citation provided (number 5) has no mention of Dienstbier saying why they used the N64.

• The sentence "Acclaim announced the sequel, tentatively titled Turok: Dinosaur Hunter 2, to be released later that same year" should be "Acclaim announced the a sequel, tentatively titled Turok: Dinosaur Hunter 2, was to be released later that same year.
• In order to provide merit to the statement that the game was generally well received by critics, you should work the Metacritic or Game Game Rankings score into the reception section, as has been done in several other CVG articles. Something like, "Turok: Dinosaur Hunter was well received at the time of its release, receiving an average rating of 85 percent according to Metacritic, a review collator."
• Finally, the images' FU rationales should be actually called "Fair use rationale" instead of just "Rationale".

That should be all, hopefully. Green451 19:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the mistakes. I will try to remedy all of them by tonight. Thunderbrand 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I got everything you listed. Thanks for pointing out that citation mistake. Thunderbrand 00:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the fixes. As hard as this may be to believe, there are actually one or two things I missed my first time around, so if you'll indulge me once more:

• "The game's, and later installments of the franchises' weapons have received much attention" sounds awkward. Possibly reword it to something like, "The game's weapons, and those of later installments in the franchise have received much attention"
• The reference to the Business Wire press release links to the GameSpot review of the game.
• The use of distance fog was noted to keep the game's frame rate high" should be "The use of distance fog was used to keep the game's frame rate high", in my opinion.

Once these changes are made, I will definitely pass the article for GA, unless some last-minute problems pop up, which I highly doubt. Green451 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I got those too. Thunderbrand 18:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't see anything else, so I'll pass this as GA quality. It was a pleasure to review this article. Cheers, Green451 18:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was hoping I wouldn't have to do it a 3rd time. Thunderbrand 19:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)