Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Orange Box/archive2

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 02:16, 21 May 2008.

[edit] The Orange Box

previous FAC (16:55, 6 April 2008)

Nomination - After the previous unsuccessful nomination, Sabre and I have gone through the previous comments raised and held a peer review, where a lot of good feedback came out. As a result, we've heavily updated the article with this feedback and feel it's ready for another go. I'll be on-hand to address any concerns that may crop up as a result. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 08:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support for now. My comments from last time seem to have been addressed. I will try to take another look at some stage. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I've tried to tweak a few things here and there to prepare the article for FA. I believe this articles meets all the standards. ~ UBeR (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: Just a note to say I'm also on-station to solve any issues raised. Hopefully there won't be as many this time around though. -- Sabre (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment "being the surprise favorite of the package." The or a surprise favorite? Overview would be better named as Games in my opinion. BuddingJournalist 21:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • How about "Overview of games"? Or is that too much? I don't see much of a difference between "a surprise favorite" compared to "the surprise favorite." Each indicate that it's the favorite among the rest. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This came up in the previous FAC and in the peer review. Essentially, from reading the source material, Portal was the surprise favourite of the package. it had virtually no hype or preview, yet received numerous accolades both from videogame journalists and the wider media. They excpected the package to be successful, but didn't expect Portal to be the best bit of the pack. The sources reflect this use of this term as well. Additionally, we have used Overview rather than Games, in order to be consistent with similar videogame article styles with a standard structure and form. Plus, the Overview forms an overview of the package as a whole, Reception covers the package as a whole, so it keeps the overall flow of the article as one unified package.Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah OK. The thing about "the" vs "a" is that "the" can be construed to be "modifying" "favorite" more than "surprise"; the sentence then implies that Portal was the critical favorite for the package overall, not just a surprise favorite (which would imply one of the top favorites rather than the favorite game of reviewers). Of course, if this is indeed the case, then this point is moot. BuddingJournalist 22:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Isn't that interesting. I modified it to "a surprise favorite" before coming here and reading the commentary, so since it struck both of us independently as an issue, and since I value my opinion very much (!), I would have to say that your criticism was justified. My reasoning was that while everyone loved Portal, TF2 and of course HL2 received higher scores on average and so labeling Portal as the favourite seemed argumentative rather than factual. Anyways, fixed. Was that all that was standing in your way of supporting? clicketyclick_yaketyyak 00:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

QuestionAre so many "Main article: " tags needed rather than just linking the first mention of the game? It makes the article much more spaced out and listy. The article is full of short sections anyway. indopug (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a good question. The Orange Box is fairly unique in that it is five games in one package. Two of those games (Half-Life 2 and the Episode 1 expansion) had been released previously in seperate packages. Episode 2, Portal and Team Fortress 2 were only released as part of the Orange Box package initially. It's why there are five 'Main Article:' links, one for each component of the Orange Box, as each has a spin-off article of it's own. Hope this helps Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I see no problems with it, presentation seems fine to me in that regard. I'm personally more of a fan of using the {{main}} template, linking the first mention of the article seems to me a bit sloppy in this regard. Using the template provides a clear "go here for more information" rather than just standard links, which to me is necessary as this article is meant to bring all those articles together. I suppose it just comes down to a matter of opinion of editors. -- Sabre (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that there are only 5 {{main}} templates--one for each of the games featured in The Orange Box. This is not a problem. It is also in accordance with various page layout and style guidelines. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand their purpose and the nature of this boxset, but I thought it looks worse with templates. They further break up an already highly sectioned article, giving it a rather listy look. Then again, your reasoning for including the templates is sound so no issues. indopug (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly understandable that the presentation looks weird with it, but I think readers come to expect that when one links in an article through {{main}} or {{seealso}}, they know that this is not just Wikilinking to help understand a term , but that genuinely there is more information behind that link that specifically relates to the article at hand. I will point that these work fine for Crazy Taxi (series) that splits off to 5 different game articles.Scratch that, I thought I had them in there when I worked it through FA, but can't tell when they were removed. I think this is just a matter of the editor opinion here, as long as its clear where further information is to be found. --MASEM 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Not to cause a fuss, but I do agree with Indopug, though it doesn't bother me overly much. It seems likely to me that the reason they were taken out of Crazy Taxi was because, like Orange Box, it contains some very short summaries of the games included. If all the Orange Box descriptions were a little longer, then it might look better, but because they are all so short — one is only three sentences long and two are only four lines long — it does look choppy. Again, it isn't a real issue to me and since it's already been resolved, I'll shut up now. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 00:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm sorry that no one has taken a hard look at this, but substantive work has not been done to bring this up to FA standard before being posted here and it shows. GA passage by another video game editor and a blank peer review. The prose is very rough and, at the very least, needs thorough treatment by an uninvolved general-audience editor before closer examination is possible. Grammar, prose, and in-universe problems are easily spotted in the lead and elsewhere:
  • "The first-person shooters Half-Life 2 and its first expansion, Episode One, have both been previously released as separate products in November 2004 and June 2006, respectively." Grammar, wordiness.
  • "The Orange Box has received critical acclaim, with Portal being a surprise favorite of the package." The "with ... <gerund>" construction is not of a professional standard.
    • I'm not sure what you mean here. If possible, could you explain what you mean? Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • The particular grammatical construction you used in that sentence ("... with Portal being...") is not good. An experienced copyeditor can help you identify and revise these throughout the article. --Laser brain (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • "Through the Steam platform for the Windows version, the games can collect and report in-depth player data such as where the player died..." The player dies? Not the character? Dangerous game. --Laser brain (talk) 17:50, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your comments - I'll try to work through them soon. There have been three editors who have been working hard on resolving issues found with this article, but there may be a problem relating to being too close to the prose. For your reference, the peer review (covered by four editors) can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Peer_review/The_Orange_Box. Hope this helps, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 23:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • My bad for missing the WikiProject peer view. I clicked the link to the general peer review. I certainly don't mean to impugn the hard work that has been done already - but as you pointed out, "outside" review and copyediting is needed. --Laser brain (talk) 23:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I have made an attempt at addressing the issues you raised. Please indicate if I have done so adequately. I do not think that it is possible to get an outside review at this moment, other than the one you are providing right now. I'll attempt to go through the article like you said, but I just finished a term paper on Kant and words have lost all meaning for me. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 00:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Just finished one full sweep through the article, hopefully cleaning up issues before you could raise them. Also hopefully not making things worse! clicketyclick_yaketyyak 04:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I am not much of a video game player, and I found some things that confused me. More context might be necessary in some cases. Also, there were prose issues (listed below are examples only, many of these problems persist in the article) and I have questions on whether some of the sources meet WP:RS.

• Prose issues:
  • "A separate product entitled The Black Box was planned, which would have included only the new games, but it was cancelled." - passive tense, use of "entitled" vs "titled", which ones were the "new games"?
  • Redundant text: "Half-Life 2: Episode One continues from the events of Half-Life 2" is followed by "Episode One builds on the original" - these say basically the same thing.
  • Long, unwieldly sentence: "The game consists primarily of a series of puzzles that are solved by teleporting the player's character and simple objects using the Aperture Science Handheld Portal Device—the "portal gun".
  • Please make sure all the text is appropriately encyclopedic. Examples of non-encyclopedic phrasing are "Valve planned on releasing "
• "Although Half-Life 2 has the largest proportion of Achievements, there are 99 spread across all five games, exceeding the 50-achievement limit that Microsoft maintains to feature the most Achievements of any Xbox 360 product"
  • I think an Achievement should be defined briefly here. I have no idea what that means.
  • What did they have to do to exceed the 50-achievement limit that MS maintains? (this makes it sound like that's a hard limit)
  • Does Half-Life 2 have the highest proportion of achievements ever, or the highest proportion among these 5 games? And I think the "Although" is likely misplaced
  • Any information on why Half-Life 2 does not contain in-game commentary?
• The article assumes I know what Half-Life was like; a description like " While remaining similar in style to the original" means nothing to me since I don't know what the original style was.
• Basically, the whole Half-Life 2 summary section assumed I understood a lot about the game, and I don't so I'm a little lost.
• I have no idea what this is supposed to mean "non-player characters such as Alyx Vance, whose new abilities complement Freeman's abilities and allow her to comprehend and respond to the player's actions by lending help"
• The Episode One summary does not appear to be organized well. It talks about continuing from Half Life (twice), then mentions Alyx Vance, then says where it is set, then talks about Alyx Vance again.
• The Episode 2 summary seems very short compared to the others.
• Why is the Track listing in a cap? That is not something I am used to seeing in a featured article, and it seems a bit unprofessional to me.
• It seems a bit odd to me that the Development section immediately focuses on a different game, and not on the Orange Box. There is also no information about why it was decided to release these games as a set-is that info available?
• This is a little confusing "The Black Box was later canceled for retail and is now only available through Steam exclusively to owners of certain ATI graphics cards, who received a voucher for a free copy of The Black Box"
• I don't understand why they felt the need to compensate for the cancellation of The Black Box, since they never actually sold any of those (at least the article doesn't say they did). This may need to be explained a bit better.
• You should have a citation immediately after every quote (at least at the end of the sentence) even if the citation at the end of the paragraph covers this.
• Is the info about the forums really that important? I'd probably distill this down to "A patch was released in North America on March 19, 2008 and a European patch followed soon after."

• Thanks for these comments, I'll incorporate them into a copyedit I've been planning, which I hope to get wrapped up in the next couple of days. They're really appreciated and demonstrate just how valuable a third-party peer review and copyedit is. I'll work through these and reply to your talk page directly. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://kotaku.com a reliable source? And Why are you referencing it instead of the Time magazine article it discusses?

• Kotaku is considered a reliable source as per WP:VG/S Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I checked the talk page for WP:VG/S, and it basically said that this site can meet WP:RS depending on who the blogger is. Can you demonstrate that the author of each of these postings linked to is an expert? Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please see below for link to discussion on WP:VG. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.schnittberichte.com/ a reliable source?
• What makes this a reliable source? http://www.onlinegamesdatenbank.de/index.php?section=game&gameid=18145
• Is shacknews considered a reliable source?

• Shacknews is considered a reliable source as per WP:VG/S Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• WP:VG/S doesn't explain how those sites meet WP:RS (which supersedes it). To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Can you provide some info about that, please? Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• No problem. You can find out about the company here and their editorial team here. In addition, other news sites such as The Register[1], GameSpot[2][3] and IGN[4][5] often quote them as a reliable source. Hope this helps to clear things up somewhat. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 22:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• joystiq appears to be a site for bloggers. Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources.

• Joystiq is considered a reliable source as per WP:VG/S. Blog content is from respected industry experts and goes through an editorial process. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 17:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I checked the talk page for WP:VG/S, and it basically said that this site can meet WP:RS depending on who the blogger is. Can you demonstrate that the author of each of these postings linked to is an expert? Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to refer you to this thread where Joystiq and Kotaku are discussed in great detail. Should anything further be required, I'll beed to bring it up with the project to request further information, as this may have an impact on a large number of other VG articles. Many thanks, Gazimoff ^Write_Read 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• There seems to be some aggreement that these can be used for facts (although a few people mentioned and I agree that you should find the original articles that are summarized and source those instead if possible), but perhaps not for opinion. At least one of the references here is to cite an opinion of the game. If that author is considered an expert (published elsewhere? cited elsewhere?) then it will probably be okay, but otherwise I'd recommend taking that off. Karanacs (talk) 01:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.