Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/System Shock 2/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:52, 20 April 2008.

[edit] System Shock 2

I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because I have been working very hard on this article for over two months and feel it meets all the FA criteria. It is factually accurate, well-written, has fair-use rationales for all images, and is complete in its coverage. This article deserves to join its Shock brethren as an FA. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 04:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I know there are copy-editing issues to deal with and I know the article has failed the nomination, but I want to take this opportunity to get opinions on how to improve the article. I have attempted to copy-edit the lead and the gameplay section and am interested in opinions on it, particularly from people who have already commented. Is the article being improved? I have to focus on school right now but I also don't want to give up on the article. Thanks for your time. -- Noj r (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Style follows other video game feature articles. I see no reason to warrant an oppose at this time. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Question Are the quotes necessary in the citations? It just seems to be a little out of place. I don't know how video games normally deal with such. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Answer: It is a frequently used technique to cite the narrative in video game articles. Many FA articles use it, like Final Fantasy VIII and Shadow of the Colossus, while older FA articles like The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask do not. I do not believe there is a set standard, the game itself acts as a reference for the narrative, but I choose to cite the story because I like to make sure everything is covered. Sorry for the lengthy explanation, hope that helps. -- Noj r (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. I've never went to a video game review with such, so I was curious. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose:

  • One of the links on the external link checker is not found.
Which one so I can fix it? Ealdgyth said they all checked out below. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It's okay now; it showed up before, but something must have changed. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "widespread acclaim.[4] Despite poor sales,". If it didn't do well commercially, then you need to specify "widespread acclaim" as "widespread critical acclaim".
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "is now regarded by critics as one of the greatest games ever made.[6]" You use plural "critics", but only provide a single reference. Regardless, a single reference to Gamespot doesn't justify such a claim. It only justifies "is now regarded by Gamespot as one of the greatest games ever made". But you can't put that in the lead.
Added two more references to bolster the claim. It is also proven in the Legacy section but must be proven in the lead as well.
  • Lead could probably be expanded slightly to mention gameplay.
The lead mentions it is a first person shooter/RPG, I dont know why it needs to go into more detail than that, especially when the gameplay section is right below it. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No, stating the genre doesn't quite do it. As for the last part, well... what can I say? Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "attempt to connect three nodes in a straight line while being wary of red ones." Being wary? Can't you replace this with soemthing like "avoid"? Informal phrasing.
You can attempt to connect red nodes, but they may explode. You can avoid them but thats not the point, your gambling when you click on a red node. Clarified in the "hacking" paragraph that you can connect but they may break it. I removed the last part of the sentence in the picture since the paragraph explains the role of the red nodes. Tell me if that helps. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
My objection was with the informal phrasing, which has been removed. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "inventory management and ammunition conservation also appear as well, enhancing the game's tense atmosphere". I'm not sure about this one. I'd thought such mechanisms exist as a practical factor of gameplay, and not to enhance the atmosphere. I may be wrong.
I have references to back this up. Many critics and the developers have said this was an effort to create a tense atmosphere. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the OSA? Shouldn't it be wikilinked?
This has been debated before, here. It is never mentioned in the game what OSA stands for. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a clue about SS2, but if this is the case, then at least let the reader know that this is an acronym that doesn't stand for anything. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's the Von Braun? Is that the ship? If so, make sure the reader knows this.
Done. Changed to "Ship" -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Skills can be bought using cybernetic modules at upgrade units, allowing the player to increase specific abilities." Does this not have the same meaning as the similar sentence in the second paragraph?
Done. Reworded. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "OS units"? Again, what does this mean. What does "OS" stand for?
Again, it is never explained in the game or instruction booklet. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest: I think the gameplay section is hard to understand and is just quite excessive. You know, I just don't think you need a paragraph dedicated to collecting items, for example. Personally, I'd work on cutting it down.
Some changes have been made, what is specifically confusing? I have reread the section and believe it flows well and is explanatory. Of course, I beat the game and wrote the section, so that doesnt help... -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think there has been an attempt at summarising the story here. I personally think it's too long. Reads more like a recount than a summary.
Ive tried to cut it down. Please tell me what you think -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Remeber that a full stop isn't required for captions that aren't full sentences.
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "1 year"—"1" should be written out in full here.
Done. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The relevance of the paragraph in "Developemnt" about the competition winner is dubious to me.
Done. Cut it out, it really is trivial. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know why the release date of the game has been included in "Reception".
Me either. Done. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Cut out some redundant "alsos".
  • "cyber ninja's"—I may be wrong here, but shouldn't 's be outside the quotation marks?
  • I don't think there's any reference in the reception to graphics.
  • Arranging the reception section by two paragraphs for positive and two for negative really is just basic, and not something I'd expect of an FA.
  • No mention of sales, even though it's mentioned briefly in the lead. Stops it from being comprehensive.
It is stated many time by critics that the game was a failure commercially, however, I have looked everywhere and found no sales data. I dont see how that should prevent it from achieving FA though, many other FAs have no sales date. What if sales data is impossible to find, can it not pass FA? -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But you've still mentioned it in the lead then have failed to mention it in the rest of the article, which shouldn't happen. As for whether it stops it from being an FA, I wouldn't say that it does definitely, but it really would help the article's chances if it did have it. May need to ask someone at WP:VG or WP:FAC about the imapct this has on the article. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strange, the Bioshock article describes the setting as dystopian, yet this describes it as utopian. Do you mean that the setting used to be utopian? If so, reword.
This was discussed here. It is a utopia, because that is what it was before the disaster. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But still, the wording is dubious because the reader can interpret it as the setting now. And if that is the case, then it was utopian and not is utopian. So this needs to be reworded. To say that something is abandoned, and then describe it as utopian is oxymoronic too. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Again with the jargon—"revitalization units can be found"
Done. "revitalization" to "reconstitution". It also explicitly explains what it is right after. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How does the link to the Open Directory satisfy WP:EL? Delete either MobyGames or IMdB, as one is redundant in regards to the other.
I was looking at other FAs to see what they link to. Removed Moby Games. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A good article, but the lack of sales data stops it from being comprehensve. The "Story" section and "gameplay" section aren't concise too. In general, it also has readership problems i.e. jargon and assuming that the reader will know. Ashnard Talk Contribs 13:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look over the article. I will address the more difficult issues later today. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll have another look tomorrow to answer more of your questions. Ashnard Talk Contribs 00:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I can say it looks better now after looking at the changes. I've done a bit of copyediting myself. I'd say that the "gameplay" section looks fine now. I still have concerns about technical terms and jargon, like "TriOptimum" that is neither explained nor wikilinked. For the setting and plot, I have trouble distinguishing between what is plot and what is setting, because the second paragraph of "setting" just feels like story-telling, rather than setting. It's great that it's been condensed, but, as David Fuchs said in the PR, the style needs working on too. It has that "and then this happened" style if you know what I mean. Plus, again with claims being made: "SHODAN is recognized by game critics as one of the most notorious villains in video game history[64]" This suffers the same point as the other sentence i.e. plural claim, one citation. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

It is recognized as reliable by wikiproject video games and Kotaku cites their sources. They are also professional bloggers not random goons and are cited on many FA articles.
He was the lead programmer on System Shock 2, this is his blog. I believe it is reliable and noteworthy because this was someone working on the title. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Another industry professional, Kieron Gillen. It is his work blog. I believe it is reliable and noteworthy because he is a respected journalist and has interesting things to say about the title. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The two refs above are from the Bioshock article. I figured since they came from an FA they were alright. Will fix them later when i have time.
All links checked out as good. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per criteria 3 and 1A concerns:
    • Image:Systemshock2box.jpg is not low resolution (WP:NFCC#3B).
      • Ill reduce its size when i have time. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Systemshock2 ingame final.jpg and Image:SS2 Medical.jpg should not coexist. WP:NFCC#3A states "Multiple items are not used if one will suffice". Showing HUD, inventory, hybrid and medical floor could all be accomplished in one screenshot (walk up to hybrid on medical level, open inventory and take screenshot). Although moot, both are also not low resolution.
      • The said image would be so convoluted it wouldnt be a very good image at all. Ill resize these when i have time later today. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Image:Tau Ceti V.jpg does not appear necessary to our understanding. Game events take place entirely on the conjoined ships; the greater Tau Ceti V system is of negligible and secondary importance to the story and game itself. How does this image contribute significantly to our understanding of the game or plot (NFCC#8)? I'm not convinced the concept artwork is necessary either.
      • The prologue takes place on Tau Ceti V. Its also there for aesthetics, it looks nice, instead of having paragraphs of text. If it is preventing FA then Ill remove it. Concept art? Maybe we shouldn't have images at all... -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • TCV plays a negligible and unimportant role in the plot. Fair use images cannot be used for aesthetic reasons. Indeed, we shouldn't have fair use images if they can't be supported by policy. What significant contribution do these images make to our understanding (NFCC#8)? Why are they necessary (NFCC#3A)? ЭLСОВВОLД talk 21:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I share the same prose and comprehension concerns noted above. A few more from a cursory glance: "befriends [SHODAN]" is not how I would characterize a "serve me or die" relationship; mention of characters of Tommy and Rebecca appears out of the blue; etc. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 15:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • fixed befriends issue. Tommy and Rebecca are mentioned midway in the section, because they appear at the end, and it would seem strange to readers why two people got away, who are they? etc. -- Noj r (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment "Taking place on board an adrift starship in the year 2114, the player takes control..." Argh! In the lead no less. BuddingJournalist 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose for various reasons, although mostly prose, which does not meet 1a.
    • As I pointed out above, please fix the misplaced modifier in the lead.
    • Lead should be expanded per WP:LEAD to include a summary of the entire article. No summary of gameplay or development is presented. Do the last two sentences of the lead merit inclusion there?
    • "released a self-proclaimed spiritual successor to the System Shock series, entitled BioShock, that was released to" Ungainly repetition.
    • "he encounters a malevolent AI who" Using AI in this fashion is colloquial at best. Artificial intelligence generally refers to the branch of computer science, not an intelligent machine. Also, please spell out abbreviations on first use.
    • "The development of BioShock has apparently reintroduced interest in the System Shock franchise leading Electronic Arts to renew their trademark on the System Shock name in 2006." First, either it did renew interest or it didn't. No need to waffle. "The development of Bioshock"? Do you mean, the success? Spot the missing punctuation mark. "Reintroduce" is odd with "interest". Are you sure it's the renewed interest that led EA to renew their trademark? Your given source does not make this claim.
    • "This has led to speculation regarding the development of a third installment in the series." We shouldn't be in the business of reporting rumors.
    • "System Shock 2 is similar to its predecessor in that it is a hybrid encompassing many gameplay mechanics from various genres." So many ways to improve this awkward sentence. Use active voice, cut redundancy, etc.
    • "while RPG-style character" Again, spell out abbreviations on first use.
    • "conservation also appear as well," This actually made me chuckle. Spot the two redundancies.
    • "Marines, the Navy" American? Under what government is the game taking place?
    • "or in the OSA" The what?
    • "result in special skills relating to combat and weapons training," Missing a verb. "result in attaining" perhaps?
    • "Marines will result...the Navy will result...the OSA results" Violation of verb parallelism. Present tense works just fine for all three.
    • "After the player has chosen a class, three tours of duty on board a star ship must be made." Made or completed? What kind of starship (note that it should probably be one word)?
    • "Ultimately, the different classes allow different routes to be taken regarding objectives..." Why "ultimately"? Recast to avoid passive construction and rid repetition.
    • In general, far too much reliance on the awkward passive when the active would do just fine.
    • I'm stopping here, after only the first five paragraphs. Please go through and thoroughly copy-edit the article or enlist the help of other editors. Once the prose of the entire article has received a polish, feel free to bring me back here for an update. BuddingJournalist 00:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I am amazed at the blatant poor writing you have pointed out that I have outrightly passed over and over again. I am working on copy-editing the article and hope I can pick this stuff out like you do someday. Thanks. -- Noj r (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.