Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/The Orange Box

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The Orange Box

As the article recently failed FAC, I'm requesting a peer review before resubmission to ensure that all outstanding issues from the previous nomination are resolved. Please note the previous nomination here. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Check the FA reviews, I'm not sure everything I said was fixed, and no i'm not pasting it here because I already did that when it was restarted.--Otterathome (talk) 18:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
    • It is believed that all outstanding issues have been cleared up, looking through the previous FA comments. Should you feel that this is not the case, please can you detail anything outstanding here. Many thanks. Gazimoff (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If there's nothing further, I'm hoping to relist this for FAC in the next few days. Many thanks for your input and please let me know if you have anything outstanding. Gazimoff WriteRead 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Article is now up for FAC here. Thanks for all your help!Gazimoff WriteRead 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by User: Ashnard

Okay, let's have a look:

  • "produced through Electronic Arts." ...? I'd replace "through" here. I know what's meant, but it's just poor word choice, and possibly grammatically incorrect.
    • I've updated this to clarify. Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What's going on with the start of the second paragraph? It's like a repeat of the start of the first but with minor alterations. Stating the release dates and formats should be reserved for the first paragraph.
    • I've redone the lead to reorder the content - release information, followed by article sumamry, wrapped up with reception. Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "The package has received critical acclaim; while the individual games within the compilation have all been well received, Portal has been the surprise favorite of the package." An excessive way of wording things. Why not put "..., with Portal being the surprise favorite of most reviewers"?
    • I've edited this down. Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "All of these games are built on Valve's Source engine." Built on? Are? Why not say "All of these games were built using Valve's Surce engine".
    • I've edited this to remove confusion. They use the Source engine to run, not just built using it.Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I prefer "built on." ~ UBeR (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

*"contains in-game commentary that can be enabled for the". Commentary by whom?

    • Commentary comes from the developers. Rather than having developers repeated twice, I've modified the rest of the sentence. Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

*"Half-Life 2 follows the scientist Gordon Freeman. Dr. Freeman is thrust into a dystopian environment in" Obvious reading difficulties here.

    • I've edited it to improve clarity. Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said before, the Half'Life 2 summary mentions nothing of actual gameplay. I don't want loads or anything.
  • Same for Episode One. If it's very similar to HL2, then state that. You've done it with Episode Two.
    • I've addressed both of these comments. Each section now includes a small amount on how gameplay differs from the original, as well as some setting, release date and reception summary Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "Portal is a single-player first-person action/puzzle game, and was introduced with The Orange Box." Poor prose. The meaning can be retained by removing the comma and the "and was".
    • I've edited this to improve clarity. Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As I said before, "and is built around two opposing teams competing for an objective." sound so clumsy. I know that it is elaborated upon, but the phrase in itself is still poor.
    • I've cleaned this up now, although I'm not 100% happy with it. Please let me know what you think. Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd split the first sentence of "Region-specific versions" as it's too long.
  • Done Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "The review aggregator site Metacritic ranks both the Xbox 360 and Windows versions of The Orange Box with an average review score of 96%, tying them for the highest rated game on both platforms." You're going to have to ask somebody else, but I think a WP:VG discussion came to the consensus that, while stating the scores, we shouldn't state the game's rank due to something like relative and absolute standards, if I remember correctly. Besides that, I don't see the point in the sentence as the score's listed in the table.
    • i've removed the sentence. Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe a pedantic one "Ben Croshaw admitted" any reason why you've used this word in particular. I'm not sure about the word because of the connotations it holds.
    • I've fixed this. Crosshaw's normally quite acerbic in his reviews, so this was quite surprising. In any point, it's not good style to say that an often-negative reviewer gave praise praise to this game, so I've rephrased it. Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The "Reception" consists predominantly of long quotes. I'd cut down the number and length (if possible) slightly, and replace some with normal prose.
    • Done. Please let me know what you think Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "for unreliable voice chat and excessive lag in Team Fortress 2[54][59][60] and long load times". Need I explain?
    • I've reworked and wikilinked this to improve readability.Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • "praised for including a quick-save feature and anti-aliasing" JARGON ALERT!
    • There's no article on quicksaving, so I've explained the concept to explain the jargon. Anti-aliasing has been wikilinked. Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Awards: Not every award should be listed; doing so is worthless. Just give the reader the general idea by including examples.
    • I'm open to ideas here. There are three classes of award - Academy/BAFTA ones where even being nominated is something special, Mainstream press ones such as Spike TV or Time Magazine, and the usual videogaming stuff. I like Otterathome's idea of maybe including a table, but I'd be interested to hear general thoughts on this. Do we go for a prose-based approach or a summary and table? Gazimoff (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I've rejigged the awards section heavily. Please feel free to leave your thoughts on the change Gazimoff WriteRead 15:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions from User:Otterathome

My section, which I may add or remove things.

  • The sections on each game seem a little random. Some sections contain information that others don't, for example it says Half-Life 2: Episode One was "criticized for its short length and lack of new features", didn't Portal have the problem of being too short? It seems odd including different types of information about each in each section. Looks like Ashnard touched on this too.
    • Indeed, in each case I've realigned the sumamry structure to have gameplay, setting, release and reception information, in that order. I hope it works better but let me know if it's an improvement. Gazimoff (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Infobox question, shouldn't requirements only include the 'Minimum'? Also consider using <br> tags to space it out better.
    • I've cleaned out the infobox as suggested. Gazimoff (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is an image from the Portal game really relevant in the reception section? Kind of seems a little pointless.
    • It was the surprise hit of the package, which is why it's included in this location. It's also to balance the images across all three components of the package. Gazimoff (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Many citations are from IGN but they are not standardized, some include IGN.com as the publisher whilst some say IGN whilst don't at all. Determine the best format and fix them all.
    • {[IGN]] is the standard. I've replaced the others. Well spotted! Gazimoff (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
      • 76 & 77 are the only remaining IGN citations that need adjusting.--Otterathome (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Wikilink "voice chat and excessive lag" some of these words? Ashnard already said.
  • There is a lot of Jargon Ashnard pointed out, when all of his issues and mine are fixed I'll look for more.
    • I've tried to clear up or wikify jargon - if you identify any more, please shout
  • The awards reads like a list, consider using a list format or a table. (think Ashnard already pointed this out).
    • I think this is a good idea. Please see the response I've given Ashnard as well - perhaps we can deliver a common way forward.
      • I've worked on this now, please let me know what you think
  • "Valve has been deactivating accounts with CD keys" - has been?
    • I've adjusted the tense on this section. Please let me know what you think.
      • I still think it could be worded better.--Otterathome (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
        • I've worked on this some more to clean up the prose Gazimoff WriteRead 14:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That is all, for now.--Otterathome (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Why does the NA release date in the infobox have three references? It is excessive, consider using one reliable one possibly from a news source.
  • Similiar to the above, the minimum requirements only need one reliable source. These two problems just make the infobox look messy.
    • Requirements has three references as it references the requirements for three games. TF2, Portal and EP2 all add up to the Orange Box, and just using one would only verify the requirements for the game referenced (HL2 and EP1 are less demanding, so shouldn't need to be mentioned). If a source can be produced for the Orange Box as a whole, then it should be replaced. But otherwise, this is the only other way of verifying the requirements for all three games. -- Sabre (talk)
      • I have a copy of the Orange Box on my desk at the moment - I'll cite the retail packaging as a source. Gazimoff WriteRead 07:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • For maintenance purposes, old versions of Image:HL2-BlackBox PC.jpg & Image:TF2 Group.jpg need deleting. This is also stops them being changed so easily. You can contact an admin to delete them.--Otterathome (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review by User:AO

The prose is fairly good, and the article is comprehensive; the only thing that bothers me is that quite a few sentences are uncited. · AndonicO Engage. 11:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If possible, please could you tag the problematic sentences with {{fact}} so that I can identify them and resolve. Many thanks! Gazimoff (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Only tagged one; the rest are fairly minor. Sorry for not noticing that before. · AndonicO Engage. 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done, although I think referencing that point is a bit on the side of overkill.-- Sabre (talk) 10:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments from User:UBeR

  • I still think "built on the Source engine" is more correct, contrary to Ashnard's suggestion.
    • Good for you. What is grammatcially correct doesn't always sound better than what isn't. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Precisely. "Built on" sounds much better. It rolls off the tongue well, too! ~ UBeR (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • It doesn't matter if it sounds better to you. We cannot replace something that is grammatically correct with something that isn't, especially on the whim that it "sounds much better". Ashnard Talk Contribs 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Ah, you know, I misunderstood your first reply. Nevertheless, "built on" is perfectly fine grammar. ~ UBeR (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Seeing as how this is overwhelmingly an American game and built by an American company, I think we should use American punctuation, in spite of the MoS's suggestions.
  • I believe the release date is October 10, not October 9. (See talk page.) ~ UBeR (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)