Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flight Unlimited III/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Flight Unlimited III[edit]

Flight Unlimited III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Featured article candidates/Flight Unlimited III/archive1
Toolbox
Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Flight Unlimited III is not a well known game. It bombed commercially and helped to bankrupt its developer, Looking Glass Studios. Even the company's management, and publisher Electronic Arts, seemed uninterested in it. Still, it was technologically advanced for its time, and reviewers loved it.

Now that Flight Unlimited II and Thief II: The Metal Age have been promoted, I only need to get this page through FAC in order to upgrade the Looking Glass Studios Good Topic to a Featured Topic. Because I wrote this article before the other two, it might be a bit weaker; but I'm ready to address any concerns that may arise. Thanks for reading. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Review by PresN
A solid article, as per usual; you're a great writer and I hope you keep finding interesting project to work on, either in LGS or outside. I'm generally worse at prose/grammar than you, so lets see if I can come up with anything in that regards in this review.
  • Well, I feel better already: "Flight Unlimited III is a 1999 flight simulator video game developed Looking Glass Studios" - developed by
  • I've read that sentence 500 times. No idea how that got there. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "However, the game was well received by critics." - Using however as a transition word for such a short sentence sounds weird to my ears. Maybe it's just me.
  • "several reviewers lauded its simulated physics. Certain critics commented that the physics lacked precision" - since these two statements seem to contradict each other, you might want something acknowledging that dichotomy- "certain other critics", or "certain critics, however,"
  • I rewrote the whole passage in an attempt to address both of your criticisms. See what you think JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Good now. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I feel morally obligated to frown whenever I see someone not using an oxford comma ("Beechjet 400A and five planes")
  • I think it's a matter of taste. As most of the articles I've worked on suggest, I prefer to leave it out. I don't think there's a guideline either way, as long as the usage is consistent. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • There isn't, it's left up to the editor. I frown nonetheless, but it doesn't really matter and I'm not counting it against the article. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "mid-air collisions.[2][3][1]" - ref ordering
  • "and the player may select which weather" - what weather, or which weather options
  • "how many people [were] quitting."" - period outside quote
  • The period is part of the original quote. I haven't read WP:MOS in years, but I'm fairly certain that a period is supposed to go inside quotation marks when the quoted passage ends with one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I only realized a few months ago, so apparently I've been doing it wrong for years, but MOS:LQ says that you only leave the period inside the quote if you're quoting the whole sentence, even if your quote fragment ends with a period. What it doesn't say is apparently this is the British method; I was taught in American school to leave in the period, and replace it with a comma (still inside the quote) if you're continuing the sentence on after. The MOS does not approve of that. I'm fine with it if you want to leave it as-is; it's not exactly the best-followed MOS rule. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Any reason the GameRankings average isn't in the review table?
  • Seemed redundant to have it in the prose and the table, and I couldn't move the score to the table without losing clarity in the prose. I could try to figure something out if you think it's important. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not, just making sure it was purposeful. --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "graphically glamorous, and lots of fun."" - period outside quote
  • Period appears in the original text. See above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "experience you can get for a PC." [4]" - same, and remove the space before the ref
  • You use a lot of quotes, which I'm certainly guilty of quite often myself, but I think the single-word quotes e.g. 'the flight physics "good" in general but "overly gentle" for' could be easily paraphrased or left unquoted as too short
  • I thought I was doing better about overquoting this time. Oh well. I changed quoted "good" to unquoted "solid", and added a paraphrase to Saltzman's review, but I'd prefer to leave the rest of the superlatives to the reviewers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm certainly not one to complain; I once brought an article to FAC where the reception section was about 60-70% quotes by volume. (Someone complained, of course). --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm, you're italicizing online sources in the references, but not the prose. These should really be consistent, unless you add publishers to the references- Ziff Davis for IGN, CBS Interactive for GameSpot, etc. Either that, move the sites from work= to publisher=, or italicize them in the prose.
  • You shouldn't put "staff" as the author if an author is not specified; it's implicitly assumed (who else would it be?), so you just leave it blank. (refs 22, 23, 27)
  • Ref 27 is the only magazine cite you give a publisher for, and that and ref 15 are the only ones with locations given- try to be consistent. Not to mention you wouldn't need to specify that southern San Fransisco is in the United States anyway; you don't do it for Orlando, Florida
  • That ref was added by another user. Fixed it to be consistent with the others. Ref 15 has a location because it's a press release. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
--PresN 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Source review- Passed
  • Sources all look good; they're mainly the same ones as at Flight Unlimited II, which I source reviewed last month. Did a few spotchecks for form's sake, and they were clean. --PresN 20:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review and kind remarks. I've always respected your work as well, between the lists, music articles and multiple featured topics—you've contributed a ridiculous amount to Wikipedia. Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - made a few remarks inline for optional changes, but I'm satisfied with the article. You've contributed a ton, too- the LGS (soon-to-be) featured topic is amazing, and the online print archive has supported tons of articles. Glad I've gotten to work with you on some articles/lists! --PresN 22:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero[edit]

Today's my last day in town before I head back to college, but I'll at least start reviewing by the end of today. Tezero (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Removed the link.
  • Likewise with "artificially intelligent" - actually, "computer-controlled" might be a better choice, although "AI" is used later - just something to consider
  • If memory serves, I've wikilinked artificial intelligence in every video game article I've ever worked on, up through FU2 and Thief 2. Not sure why it would need to change now. As for "computer-controlled", I'm not in love with that phrase. Technically, the computer controls everything that happens in a game, even though some of it is influenced by user input. "Artificially intelligent" is a phrase I used in FU2 without incident, and I think it's clearer than the alternative, so I'd prefer to stick with it.
  • Determinism, eh? Alright, that's fine; it was just a stylistic qualm, a minor one. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the player may select what weather to encounter before a flight" - What or which? In other words, can you choose multiple weather effects? Elaborate a bit.
  • Did some work on it. See what you think.
  • "wanted to move on to Flight Unlimited III, while others wanted to create Flight Combat" - Had these projects and their titles already been decided on, or is it just that some wanted to work on a sequel to FUII and others a wholly new IP?
  • Flight Combat and Flight Unlimited III are both explicitly named in the survey.
  • Development's a bit thick - keep the information, that's fine, but consider splitting it into subsections.
  • Added a subsection. How's that?
  • That's fine. Thanks. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be back when you've addressed these/when I get around to returning. Tezero (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • "He left after the game's completion to join Flightsim.com" - can you elaborate a bit on what this is?
  • Done.

Everything else looks fine, I think. As always, I do prefer issue-by-issue reviewing rather than reviewer-by-reviewer, but as far as the latter format goes Reception is fine. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Last issue addressed; many thanks for the review. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Subbord 5/5 breddy gud :DDDDDD Tezero (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Review from czar[edit]

Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted (see last FAC instructional bullet). Any questions below are rhetorical: I'm looking for clarification in the article, not an actual answer.

  • Copyedited a bit
  • Thanks. I edited a few parts that weren't true to the sources, or that otherwise made the content less grammatical or harder to understand. (Also, as a note, "due to" and "because of" are not interchangeable.) JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Caption phrases do not need final punctuation
  • Fixed.
  • While I'm not blown away by the content, I see the importance of having this article pass FAC for the featured topic
  • Really have no idea what you're talking about. Clarify and I'll take steps to address it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • not sure the "imported" wikilink to porting is proper
  • Dev could use more expansion on why they were split and what Flight Combat is
  • There is no more information on why they split. Added an explanation of Flight Combat. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "The contract also stipulated that any advances provided by Electronic Arts were to be paid back from the royalties of both games." Is this necessary? It seems like foreshadow that this becomes a problem later but it isn't
  • It did become a problem later, but it's generalized in the discussion of FU3 using up SS2's profits. I went ahead and removed the line. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Need citations immediately following direct quotes. I only tagged one such spot of several
  • I've never encountered this in 8 years at FAC, right up through last month's Thief II. Guideline link? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "the next few days were spent finding out how many people [were] quitting." this is abrupt. Why were they quitting? The prior complaints seem limited to retrospection post-release, not immediately after going gold
  • Not sure what you mean. The section clearly details struggles during development. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikilink going gold as jargon
  • Is this really the best screenshot available? I feel like it doesn't tell me much about the game unless this is the usual view...
  • I've been wondering when someone would bring it up. That's an awful image left over from the article's original form, before I revamped it. I've never played and don't own FU3, and the screenshots available online are either lousy or watermarked, so I couldn't replace the screenshot. If you think it's a big deal, I can try to pull something together. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Add GameRankings to the reviews box, remember to only use two digits of precision, per the template
  • As I said to PresN, it needs to be in the prose for that sentence to work. Adding it to the template as well is just redundant. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Removed a lot of ", because" instances—something to watch in the future as the pauses didn't make sense
  • Not sure what you mean, and your "due to" replacements were ungrammatical, so I've reinstated most of the uses of "because". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • [...] → ... per MOS:ELLIPSIS
  • Wikilink frame rate
  • The Reception is a little dry and disparate. It could be improved by aggregating the common ideas behind the reviews into a single sentence
  • Those sentences are common, but they're blatant original research. I omitted them for that reason. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Otherwise the prose is in great shape

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do an image review. (Perhaps take a look at their FURs first and clean 'em up?) I'm also looking for feedback on the Fez FAC, for those interested. czar  17:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I don't know the first thing about writing a FUR. The ones present look fine to me. Anyway, @Czar: I responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
For import/porting: Import and export of data. Citations immediately following quotes comes from WP:MINREF (part of the good article baseline criteria). Re: "finding out how many people", the section details the individual's unhappiness with the company's handling of the game—particularly post-release—so it is abrupt to hear that the staff was planning to leave even before the final word about sequels and whatnot came from the management. It just needs to be clarified in context of the rest of the section. I think the screenshot is worth recapturing—perhaps you can request one on a relevant forum? Someone is going to add GameRankings to the box eventually—the point of the box is to have easy access to the reviews. Either way, it should use two digits of precision. your "due to" replacements were ungrammatical, so I've reinstated most of the uses of "because": could you explain why? The "comma because" appear to make much less sense. I could understand removing it because it misrepresents the source, otherwise... Frame rate still needs wikilink. Aggregating sources that say the same thing into one sentence is not original research any more than having those same sentences from multiple sources spelled out in succession. The FUR on the screenshot should be expanded upon, but that will change anyway if it's being replaced. czar  22:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
First, you misread MINREF. It says that "direct quotations" should be sourced. That is the case in this article: Peter James's quotes are cited at the end of the paragraph, because all of that material is from one source. Second, all of the material from James relates to pre-release marketing, management and team morale; he left almost immediately after the game's release. His claim that the rest of the team left follows up on his claims about the game's rocky development. James's stray comment about his FU4 designs is the only extant source that discusses FU4 or its cancellation, to my knowledge, so I can't add anything else. Third, I'll see what I can do about a screenshot. Fourth, I removed the digits. Fifth, "due to" is interchangeable with "caused by"; "because of" is interchangeable with "on account of". Source: [1]. Your recent rewrites of the "because of" sentences are fine, barring the addition of another improper "due to" construction, which I've now fixed. Sixth, sentences that use phrases like "many reviewers thought X", even when followed by fifty citations, violate WP:WEASEL when used outside of the lead. More general phrases like "the game's X was praised" are full-on OR unless they are followed by a citation that summarizes, specifically, that "the game's X was praised". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Look, I'm familiar with MINREF. The standard is to directly cite after every sentence that contains a quotation because the idea is that any sentence that can be challenged should have an immediate ref. I ran the cost/CD-ROM "because of" instance past my English rhetoric grad student colleagues, and they said that "due to" made more sense. I understand that you're generalizing from that StackExchange source, but it didn't apply in this one instance. If you want, I can run the other instances past them, but I'm sure about this one you last reverted. The "many" in "many reviewers X" example would be a weasel word since it makes a broad claim unable to be confirmed, but to say "reviewers X" without the "many" wouldn't make such a claim, as the claim would only hold to the critics cited. If it were original research to aggregate claims, we wouldn't be able to say a game received positive reviews without sourcing Metacritic, etc. However you fall on that issue, it's an extreme stance to say we cannot summarize critical opinion given current practices. About James, the issue wasn't adding something else but rephrasing to clarify that they were unhappy during development and planned to leave, and then follow with his retrospective comments. The sense of time is just wonky as is. czar  02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
#1 Again, I have eight years of experience at FAC (nine on Wikipedia in general) and I've never seen anyone required to use citations in this way. Not even the four most recent VG FAs (Secret of Mana, Thief II: The Metal Age, Lost Luggage and Development of Grand Theft Auto V) follow the rule. Further, MINREF itself does not actually say what you claim it says. The discussion you linked is also completely inconclusive: it features one guy who shares your opinion, one who shares mine and a third who suggests following guy 1 to save time. This is clearly a case of personal preference rather than guidelines or policies, so I'm going to leave the article as-is on this count. #2 Regarding "due to", you're still using it improperly. Let me cite more sources.
  • Grammar Girl, "[I]f you find yourself agreeing with traditionalists—or if your writing will be judged by one—use 'due to' if you can substitute 'attributable to,' 'caused by,' or 'resulting from.'"
  • BBC Manual of Style, "This means caused by, not because of."
  • Economist Style Guide, "When used to mean caused by, due to must follow a noun, as in The cancellation, due to rain, of... Do not write It was cancelled due to rain. If you mean because of and for some reason are reluctant to say it, you probably want owing to. It was cancelled owing to rain is all right."
#3 "Reviewers" is still a weasel word when used beyond the lead section. Again, see WP:WEASEL, which offers the words "scholars" and "experts" as examples. A generalized word like "reviewers" is acceptable only when it "accurately represent the opinions of the source" (bold italics in the original), i.e. when the source itself refers to "reviewers" as a whole. And yes, it is original research to say that "X received positive reviews" unless that claim is backed up directly by a source (such as Metacritic or GameRankings). This is not at all extreme. #4 I tried to address the timeline issue. See what you think. #5 I'll see what I can do about the screenshot, but it might be a few days before I get any bites on the relevant forums. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 10:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: New screenshot in place. See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Expanded the FUR. --PresN 06:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Image-related stuff has always been a blindspot of mine on Wikipedia. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems that Czar is uninterested in continuing his review. Pinged him here and dropped a note on his talk page, but haven't heard from him in four days even though he's been editing elsewhere. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Same happened with Sonic X, which is now in limbo at one support and czar's incomplete image and source review. He passive(-aggressive?)ly mentioned on my talk page that it can be tedious to check what's been done on reviews, but when FACs are waiting on you, four days is a little much, I think. Tezero (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
AGF, please. I have less time to edit during the week and my reviews have almost exclusively been done over the weekends. And that any review hangs on my immediate response (or my complete review at all) is hyperbolic. czar  05:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry; didn't realize that was a pattern. We can both wait. Tezero (talk) 05:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Czar: had you responded at all on your talk page, I would have known to wait. I assumed from the total lack of a reply that you'd dropped the review for some reason—perhaps because of personal business or the innumerable GAN reviews you're doing. AGF wasn't even an issue. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I think the pulling of rank was inappropriate in this case. If you don't agree with my interpretation of minref, that's fine, you just had to say so. In the tradition of GA reviews, the phrase is "If the article contains any of these five types of statements, then some sort of inline citation system must be used for those specific statements." I've never seen minref read in your interpretation and just because it hasn't ever been questioned doesn't make me confident that it's correct. On "due to" and "because of", I see the sources you reference, but I'm going from the recommendation of the two foremost editors I know, both English lit doc students and university writing tutors. (Perhaps it's more of British English thing?) Again if you disagree, that's fine, but your tone in doing so has been off-putting. On your interpretation of original research, I just went through a number of GANs in the last week and they all make claims about the positive/negative content of reviews and then go on to combine those judgements on the whole as "X received positive reviews". I'm not interested in debating whether or not your interpretation is extreme, but I will say that in my experience, WPVG articles do not abide by that standard and I do not think a WT:VG discussion on the topic would affirm your stance. These things aside, the new screenshot is much better. It needs to be reduced to <100k pixels and its FUR needs to remove reference to the airplane (which is no longer there) and it'll be fine. I can support this nomination on prose, minding my ideological disagreements on the issues interpreted above, and I would have been able to have done so sooner (as not much has changed) had the bolding and policy-caps retorts been more generous in tone. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar  01:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Czar: Thanks. And I'm sorry if my tone came across as harsh or insulting; when I'm at FAC, I often handle disagreements in spare, blunt language to avoid wasting time. Add to that my irritation at your usage of "due to"—which was mine, too, before I was set straight by another Wikipedian—in your copyedit, and even I can see where I went over the line. Apologies. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Image Review - Pass

File:Flight Unlimited 3 cover.jpg - Fair use, small res, extended FUR- pass
File:Flight Unlimited III.jpg - Fair use, small res, extended FUR- pass. I've gone ahead and deleted the older, larger version.
File:Space Needle002.jpg - Free (PD) - look at that classy city.
  • All three images pass; no other media present. --PresN 19:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)