Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Half-Life 2

Previous FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Half-Life 2/Archive 1

Self-nomination and renomination. I have picked up where User:Thunderbrand has left off. The article itself has been further cleaned up, including the following:

1.) A more concise lead intro
2.) A lot more references
3.) Stabilization of past and present tense
4.) Addition of a reception section
5.) Fixed nit-picky complaints in last FA attempt

As far as why it should be featured, the article itself is beautifully written. It's easy to read, it's informative, and it's pretty exhaustive. It's one of the best games out there, and it's been hailed as one of the most influential games of all time. I think that's something that we should give credence to. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 05:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This article has less than 30KB of prose as of 23 May 2006
This article has 33KB of prose as of 22 May 2006. I make it 44.4... Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Um, some of those images we're claiming "fair use" on are really high-res. Jkelly 05:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Which? If you're referring to the game images, the rationale given seems to be fine:
      • Valve Software has not released any screenshots to the public domain
      • The image is used to show the game's distinctive graphical style
      • The image is being used in an informative way and should not detract from the game
      • The image does not limit Valve's ability to sell the game
    • So... I suppose one could lessen the size, but it should be fine.. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 05:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The images have the potential to reduce the commercial value of the screenshots; if Valve wants to, say, make posters or T-shirts, someone could compete with them by taking the images from Wikipedia and using them. We're probably better off safer than sorry and replacing the images with lower-resolution versions; how much harm could this do to the article if the article is using low-res images anyway? Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Alright then. I'll reduce the size of the images later today. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Done. The image sizes have been reduced to more acceptable levels. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks. They're still rather large, though - is that really necessary for a reason I'm not getting? For example, I don't think we need such a large screenshot of a simple interface. Johnleemk | Talk 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
      • For later computer and video games featuring anti-aliasing, screenshots should be large enough to illustrate any details that the game's graphic engine creates, especially those including complex scenes with a large number of elements (bump mapping, level of detail in textures, draw distance, etc.) The 800x640 resolution limit is reasonable enough by my book, and is also comparable to the size of the depicted scene when viewed from a standard computer or television screen. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 17:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
        • Well, yes, but the image I linked to isn't a complicated one by any means. The fair use template used also inaccurately describes the images as "web-resolution" (more like wallpaper res), but it's a minor detail. Johnleemk | Talk 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
          • My previous post referred specifically to game screenshots, but I do agree with you on the image you pointed to - applications in windowed environments should be depicted under a lower resolution if its general content is minimal. In addition, 800x600 pixel images contain 72 pixels per inch, exactly the (1998?-2000?) standard of a web image resolution. [1] ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 15:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
  • Comment. Could you replace the map of the world icon with International. The icon is not very clear and rarely used. CG 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Linuxbeak has done an incredible job fixing this up for an FAC run. I think it is definately worthy. Thunderbrand 15:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A large section from the middle appears to be from direct observation of the game. A very-strict reading of WP:RS#Some_definitions would disallow that. Can this material (descriptions of the levels and scenes, etc.) be sourced instead from reviews or strategy guides instead? Preferably print ones, to avoid further issues about reliability of sources. I'd also like to see Category:Killer games taken off. brenneman{L} 15:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the category as you requested. I'll work on trying to get more sources for this section, but I don't think that it's entirely critical. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've got a ton of references for you now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Support I also approve of the re-adding of the soundtrack, by the way. We may be stretching the number of screen shots that are "fair use" here, but that's more an observation than a complaint as there is no denying they look great. Well done all around, I'd say. - brenneman{L} 01:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support – I can't see anything significantly wrong with this article – Gurch 16:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Nicely written, interesting article. Lots of references and overall good compliance with WP:MOS. - Matveims 19:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support-Well referenced, well written article. Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Well written and more comprehensive than previous FAC versions, along with having better reference use. Worthy of FA status. Nufy8 20:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Object - the article is not, in my opinion, an appropriate length. 55kb of text is something that only a tiny proportion of readers are likely to want to wade through, and I fear the effort that has gone into making this article so large will not result in it actually being read very much. Exceeding 32kb is seldom justified, and you could hugely increase the appeal of the article by writing much more concisely. The plot section alone is the size of Silverpit crater, a featured article - I don't see how that can realistically be justified. The verbosity is overwhelming, and the article could probably say everything it says now in about half the space, if the writing was better. This is my fundamental problem with the article, but others include
    • "Rise and shine, Mr. Freeman. Rise and shine..." --The G-Man - why is this quote present, just underneath a section heading? What's the relevance? Same for the longer quote at the end of that section, quote at the beginning of 'narration'
    • Why have a box listing the chapter sequence? What does this actually tell me about the game?
    • Why have a list of official maps? This is not synthesising and summarising, as encyclopaedia articles are supposed to.
    • The description of the journey in 'Cuts...' is a bullet-pointed list - why not prose?
    • Why list all the tracks on the soundtrack? Worldtraveller 01:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Er, this article has, by my estimate, 33KB of prose. Length of prose is the only thing that Wikipedia:Summary style is worried about. Granted, 30KB is the starting point of getting too long, depending on the topic (some topics need more space). That said, I do agree that some parts of this article could be trimmed (an article on a video game need not be so long). --mav 16:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Hm, well when I stripped out all the formatting and tables just now there was still 44kb of actual prose... Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Allow me to show you a couple of examples of other featured articles that are beyond 32kbs...
      • So, this article would be right smack in the middle. There's nothing terribly wrong with that. As far "if the writing was better", please, tell me how I could improve it.
        • I just did some analysis of FA lengths - 87% of them are shorter than this. I can see loads of ways in which the writing could be made more concise - far too many to list. It's flabby writing that makes the article too long, not breadth of subject or quantity of information. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • I would like to know how you arrived with this number. "87%" indicates a very precise figure, and seeing that there are nearly one thousand featured articles, I find it difficult to believe that you went through each and every one to determine their actual size. In terms of "loads of ways in which the writing could be made more concise", I'm only asking for a few examples. The purpose of going through FAC is to figure out how to make the article better so that it may be promoted. I can't help you/the article if you don't help me out first. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I wrote a script to get all the lengths. It needs polishing but I may put it online somewhere - the only way to get sizes at the moment is to use the search button for every article you want to know the size of.
            • As for flabby text, well fundamentally the plot section seems way over-detailed to me. Bits like ...which Kleiner has been upgraded from a Mark IV version to a Mark V... are confusing to anyone who hasn't played the game and don't really add anything to the description. According to my script your plot section alone is longer than featured articles on Franklin B. Gowen, Warren County Canal and the First Battle of the Stronghold. I don't see how you can justify describing the plot at such length. Summary and synthesis of information to make it accessible to as wide a body of readers as possible is the aim of an encyclopaedia, and I don't think this fulfils that aim. Also, the plot section entirely lacks references. Where is all this information coming from?
            • Beyond 'plot', things get better in terms of the space allocated to each section, but there's still enormous verbosity. For example:
              • The usage of Steam has not gone without controversy. Users have had numerous problems with Steam, sometimes being serious enough to prevent a reviewer from recommending a given title available on the service. In other cases, review scores have been lowered - you could say all that as The Steam game engine has proved unpopular with some players and game reviewers., cutting out two thirds of the text.
              • A 1 gigabyte portion of Half-Life 2 became available for pre-load through Steam on August 26, 2004. This meant that customers could begin to download encrypted game files to their computer before the game was released. When the game's release date arrived, customers were able to pay for the game through Steam, unlock the files on their hard drives and play the game immediately, without having to wait for the whole game to download. The pre-load period lasted for several weeks, with several subsequent portions of the game being made available, to ensure all customers had a chance to download the content before the game was released. - how about For several weeks before Half life 2 was officially released, customers could download game files, which were then activated when the game was subsequently purchased. With a skillful wielding of an editorial scalpel you could easily say everything that's said in about half the space. Worldtraveller 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
                • The potential problem I see with that is a sacrifice of detail. The article as it is is very rich in detail, as this presents information in a more complete manner. I have tried to cut down a little but frankly I'm not an amateur when it comes to writing. If I do more in terms of compression, I'm going to end up cutting off parts that I'd rather not let go. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • In the two examples I gave, I do not see that any detail has been sacrificed by cutting the amount of text by two thirds. My whole point is that you can say everything that needs to be said in half the space, by writing more concisely. This will increase the appeal of the article considerably. Worldtraveller 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • In your first modified example, I find "The Steam game engine has proved unpopular with some players and game reviewers" to be overly general. First, although this is purely me being picky, Steam isn't a game engine. It's a content delivery system. The revised example doesn't mention that Steam itself led to what would have been higher review ratings. The second example doesn't describe how the Steam pre-load works, nor does it mention the benefits to which one would want to do such a pre-load. That's the problem I have with your examples here. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • In the first one, I think it would be implicitly obvious that if Steam was unpopular with reviewers it would have led to lower ratings. And in the second, it is also implicitly obvious that you'd download early to save time. Even if my trimmed versions are not perfect, I think they still show that making the article much more concise is very possible. Worldtraveller 09:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
        • The quotes are a colorful addition. What's wrong with them? They don't detract from the article in any way.
          • Yes, they do - they are not relevant to the text and they don't explain anything about the game. They make it look like a piece of journalism or fan writing rather than an encyclopaedia article. They are not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Seeing that there has been significant speculation from several sources on what the G-Man means or actually is, the quotes add a touch of color and taste to the article. Wikipedia is not supposed to be dry, and a game article doesn't need to be as academicly uniform as, say, an article on astrophysics. It's not fan writing; it's a quote from the game, and a rather significant one at that. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
              • At the moment, the quote tells me nothing at all about the game - it doesn't enlighten me in any way. It just looks like a fan's unnecessary addition. If you want to use it to explain something, it needs to be done in the text. Worldtraveller 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
                • What I did with those quotes is a writing technique called a epigraph. I'm afraid that in this case, it's wholly a matter of taste, as there is no rule allowing or forbiding them in Wikipedia. I like them as they add taste, but they're not critical. I will remove them for now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • Yes, it's a technique that's fine for novels, but not really fine for an encyclopaedia article. Worldtraveller 00:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh, THAT list. I removed it. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • The list of maps that you're referring to (I think) is not a list of maps. It's the story line, and it's akin to a table of contents for the game.
          • Looks like you removed the list I was referring to originally. There is still the chapter box, which I think you are referring to here. This doesn't tell the reader anything about the game - it adds no value to the article. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Why not a bullet-pointed list?
          • Bullet points are for lists, not for separating paragraphs. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I ask that you read that section out loud. You will see that there are parts that would just not jive inside of a paragraph. There's nothing wrong with a list format here. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I removed the soundtrack; that could be put into another article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't see how anyone can write a featured article without (if not exceeding) treading dangerously close to the 32kb limit. In the first place, it was there for technical reasons. The issue should be whether or not the length makes the article hard to read. Johnleemk | Talk 05:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, 378 current FAs are less than 30K long, and 147 are less than 20kb. I think one of the real skills of writing an FA is to say all that needs to be said in the fewest words possible. Beyond a certain limit, the longer an encyclopaedia article on a given topic, the fewer people will actually read it, and while many people would want to read 55Kb about the second world war, or the Inca empire, or Einstein, far fewer people are likely to want to read 55Kb about a computer game. Worldtraveller 18:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Is there anything wrong with a longer article? I would rather have more information than less. As I mentioned above, I would like to see how you came up with these figures. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • As I said, it's flabby writing that's leading to size here. If you can say all that you need to say in 20kb of text, you shouldn't use 55kb of text to say it. Worldtraveller 20:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Eloquence and conciseness are very important qualities for an article. However, I do not share your criticism that this article has "flabby writing". There is a lot to be said about this influential video game and there should not be an arbitrary technical restriction on how large an article should be. There are plenty of featured articles that exceed the 32KB restriction (Antarctic krill, Robert Lawson (architect), El Lissitzky, AIDS, Albatross, Aquarium, Asperger syndrome, Asthma, the list goes on..) If you have any concrete criticism of the language being used in the article, then that would be constructive criticism. As it stands your main caveat seems to be with the length of the article, and your vague accusations on the writing do little but confirm this. jaco♫plane 02:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I gave two examples above of pieces of writing which could be cut by a third without losing any information. Worldtraveller 09:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I have taken a hard look at the article (especially the plot) and I have talked to others who have been watching the article and FAC in length. At this point, I am going to disagree with your stance. The examples that you did give cut out details that I would much prefer to have left there. I also am against your summarization of my writing as "flabby". That's way too vague for me to make any constructive changes to, and others disagree with your statement that this article can be significantly tightened up. The fact of the matter is that Half-Life 2 is a very in-depth game with a great amount of detail involved, and that detail deserves to be conveyed. You stated on your talk page that you think that the article could be roughly halfed in terms of size. I am not going to cut down the article to half the size it is now. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but it's very disingenuous to claim that my objection to flabby writing is too vague, when I gave two very specific examples. Who disagrees, by the way? I looked through your contributions and couldn't find any discussion you've had about this issue with other editors. I'm sure the game is very detailed, but the skill of writing an encyclopaedia article is to give an account of the detail in as few words as possible, thus maximising the article's potential audience. As it is, quite frankly, I find this article overwhelmingly dull - much too long to enjoy. Sad to see, I feel the effort put into writing an article this large is somewhat wasted, because not nearly as many people will feel like reading it as they would if it was much shorter. My contention is that you can halve the article without sacrificing any detail, and you seem to be saying it has to be verbose. All I can do, then, is reiterate that I oppose this nomination. Worldtraveller 14:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
The two examples you gave are not examples of "flabby writing". I already stated that the examples that you gave eliminated detail that I did not want to eliminate. As far as who disagrees, there are multiple people, including but not limited to jacoplane, gurch, and Greentryst. We talk on IRC, so that's why you haven't seen in-wiki conversations regarding it. You may find it dull, but is there a chance that you just may not be interested in the subject matter? I'm going to risk a fallacy of appealing to the masses, but as of right now you're the only opposer out of fourteen supporters. I don't think it's fair to assume that everyone who reads this will be intrigued. I have addressed most of your concerns, but I'm afraid that this one objection is one that I do not see as practical or actionable. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 14:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Not interested in the subject matter? An easy accusation to make at someone who is objecting to your article, but not accurate in this case. FAC is not a vote, and numbers of supporters is irrelevant if actionable objections are raised. Ignore my objection if you want but you shouldn't try to dismiss it as unactionable - it is completely actionable, you're just choosing not to take any action on it. Greentryst says he likes yams - not sure I see how that makes my objections untenable. Rather than claiming that people are backing you up on IRC, why not get them to discuss here? Quite honestly, if I can write an article about an entire planet in 35kb, I think you can write an article about a computer game in the same or less. 55kb is massively indulgent. I'd like there to be an article about Half-life 2 that would appeal to a large number of potential readers, and I'm afraid this isn't it. Worldtraveller 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of anything, Worldtraveller. I was asking if it was possible and if it had some affect on your position. I know better to not make ad-hominem circumstantial fallacies. I do not think it's actionable, because I've reviewed the article three times over since you last posted and my writing is tight. Half-Life 2 is a long game (it can easily take 70 hours or more to finish), and it's chock-full of detail. You're asking me to shave off more than 20 kb worth of text, which is something that I simply am unable to do without affecting the quality of the article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You may not be able to do it, but it can be done. Like I say, if I can summarise all that's known about Mercury into a 35kb article, I am sure you can do better still with a computer game. You might think your writing is tight, but perhaps mine is a less partial view, and I disagree. In the two examples above, apart from my calling Steam something it's not, your text does not actually tell the reader anything more than my text does. Honestly - from reading yours I come away with not a bit more knowledge than from reading mine. You've just used a lot more words to say exactly the same thing. Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been chatting to LinuxBeak on IRC, and I think that the plot summary should be cut to oe or two paragraphs max. Other than that, i'm pretty happy with how this has turned out, it might be verbose in parts but overll I'm happy with what I read. Check 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be a very positive step. I really don't see the need to describe the plot in such excessive detail - I just looked through seven or eight film and book FAs, and none had a plot section longer than 5 paragraphs. Worldtraveller 16:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
You might consider doing what the peeps over at the Starcraft FA did and create another sub article. - Hahnchen 01:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
In response to Worldtraveller, Perfect Dark, which was recently on the main page, has a box listing the missions. Thunderbrand 15:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice job. The only minor caveat I have with this article is that besides the track listing and the name of the composer, the article doesn't actually say what kind of music is included with the game. I haven't played the game, so I have no idea whether the score is headthumping techno or classical music. jaco♫plane 23:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Neutral, I see the entire section on the soundtrack has now been removed. I think the article needs to mention the musical score before it can be a FA. jaco♫plane 20:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • It has been readded. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support It is definitely ready by most technical standards, but I would really like to see some serious improvements, and see it a little more concise, meeting the size limit, before it hits the front page. I have been paying too much attention to the sub articles, perhaps I should shift my efforts.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The Half-Life 2 article would be a good choice for FA. Its well written, organized, and as far as I can see there are no errors. SarcasticPirate 16:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - It's a very good article. However, I would personally prefer the plot and deleted scenes sections to be reduced. Yet I thought that the list of DM maps were not of detriment to the article. I'd rather have more comment on things that are in the game than things that are not. - Hahnchen 18:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Oppose - Actually, I've changed my mind about this. It is a good article, but I think the cuts are being made to the wrong places. The cut of the DM maps as well as the soundtrack, I think, were not good "additions" to the article. I think the soundtrack track listing was encyclopedic, as it was released on a separate CD. Personally, I would shorten the "cuts from the game" section and possibly move it onto a subpage, although I don't think the length was a problem in the first place (contrary to others). And a further question, are the cuts from the game derived purely from "Raising the Bar"? Or does it include scenes from the source code leak, or would that be OR territory? And I would also like to see expansion to the Reception section, could we have some reasons to why the press loved the game? And how about a comment on some of the awards it has won? [2]- Hahnchen 20:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I'll restore the soundtrack and maps later tonight, if that's the case. I can work on what you listed as well. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Okay, this is what I've done:
          • I've readded the soundtrack information.
          • I've shortened the cuts section and I made a seperate sister article out of it. All of the cuts information was from Raising the Bar.
          • I expanded the reception section as well as added a tidbit about the awards. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Support Major issues fixed. - Hahnchen 01:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Now that the epigraph has been removed, I pledge my full support for the Half-Life 2 article as a Featured Article. The length may be questionable, but Linuxbeak cut the article up nicely and removed what was unnecessary. --Tristam 00:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. ^^^ who doesn't?? (oh yeah, the article is nice too...) -Mysekurity [m!] 05:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Nicely done! ~ Vic Vipr 13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. A damn good FAC. Sasquatch t|c 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Check 16:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support good page (though I think that Perfect Dark, with half the size, is better) igordebraga ≠ 16:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Thought of holding my vote for a while, but the hell with that. Article length and minor little mistakes (fixed, btw) withstanding, everything seems to be in order. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 17:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
  • Support. Yep, Linuxbeak poked me on IRC, I read the article, and it's great! WerdnaTc@bCmLt 01:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, a good read to be sure, however, I must say that although I support the article in its current form for FAC status that I am worried that its plot section may be a bit too extensive. A better summary could perhaps be made by removing some of the more inconsequential parts of the story. Perhaps a story/"timeline"-like article could be made to lighten this section. K1Bond007 06:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As mentioned above, the plot section is far too long. We only need enough to tell the reader what the game is about, not a blow-by-blow account. There are still a lot of problems with the writing: "Gordon is provided an air boat, allowing him greater expediency"; "The fate of many of the major characters... go unexplained"; "the majority of the game is spent", etc. The Narration section consists almost entirely of speculation. HenryFlower 10:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I have created a sister article called Half-Life 2 plot and have moved the plot there. The plot in Half-Life 2 has been substantially reduced in size. The narration section has been trimmed and another source has been added. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Much better, thanks. HenryFlower 15:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)