Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Orange Box/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andonic (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 29 March 2008 (Replied.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Orange Box

Toolbox

Self-nomination: The article passed through good article status recently, I put it through a quick automated peer review for last minute checks and I now believe its worth a shot at featured status. -- Sabre (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  • "The package has received critical acclaim and has been nominated for several awards." Unless it won these awards, this is barely worth mentioning. MASEM 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead section is insufficient and short—there's no mention of development and the soundtrack, and there's only one sentence on Reception, which needs fixing. The lead needs to summarise the article comprehensively. -- Though could there be more? Again, this is an odd article in that each game has its own article, so this is basically describing a "wrapper". MASEM 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in-depth player statistics and achievement awards". You're going to have to clarify what these are because it's gaming jargon. MASEM 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of overview barely provides any context, but just talks about these "achievements". MASEM 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help if you actually mentioned the gameplay of the game in each of their summaries
  • Make a choice between BrE and AmE as there's "unfavorable" and "criticised" in the article. Make it consistent.
  • "Half-Life 2: Episode Two is the second of a trilogy of episodes continuing from the events of Half-Life 2." This is just stating-the-obvious and is redundant MASEM 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each of the summaries probably need to be expanded to mention gameplay, provide more context, more detail about reception etc.
    • I will argue this here. I mentioned above how each game has its own page. Each section is linked to that, and each also links to the genre of the game. Going into any further detail here seems excessively unnecessary (if one game lacked it's own page, certainly, but this is the right amount of depth for a summary style approach). --MASEM 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suppose that's fair enough. But sometimes it feels like a little bit's missing, like how is Half-Life 2: Episode One different from the previous game? As in, except from the plot. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Technically there's very little difference. Part-way through the series some additional source engine capabilities were added, mainly revolving around high dynamic range lighting and other similar effects. If anything, the instalments have been designed to stitch together as seamlessly as possible.Gazimoff (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP: DASH—unspaced emdashes or spaced endashes. - Should be fixed --MASEM 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Portal is a single-player first-person action/puzzle game that was first made available as part of The Orange Box." Prose is weak here. MASEM 23:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again with the prose: "Team Fortress 2 is a multiplayer team-based first-person shooter that is a sequel to the original Team Fortress modification for Quake." Replace that with and and replace is a with the. MASEM 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Orange Box, Team Fortress 2 is built around two opposing teams competing for an objective" This is vague and nonsensical. Doesn't every game involve people trying to achieve an objective. MASEM 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with praise for the unique settings and characters not seen before in a multiplayer game." Strange. Is this supported by the source, or is this original research#original synthesis? -- Sabre (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this point, the sentence is backed up with two sources. The GamePro reference states "The online FPS Team Fortress 2 is also a winner with its unique cartoony visual style" - praise for unique settings in the game. The PCGamer UK reference (which I've modified to use the web-based publication of the same article) states at the end of a paragraph on the game's characters "Character is a catalyst for comedy, and until now multiplayer games just haven't had it." - praise for unique characters in the game. Its not trying to push a view point with synthesis, its just regurgitating those two points in the reviews into a single sentence. -- Sabre (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've got it muddled here. This one reviewer is saying that this extent of comedy is unseen in multiplayer games, this does not warrant the comment "praise for the unique settings and characters not seen before in a multiplayer game." This is the viewpoint of a single reviewer, so this claim shouldn't be represented in this way, as if it were fact and not his opinion. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The box art for the Windows version of The Black Box." This shouldn't have a full-stop at the end as it's not a full sentence.
  • "only available through Steam to owners of certain ATI graphics cards." Who's Steam. Wikilink please. -- Sabre (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dollar signs should be wikilinked to express that it's the (assumendly) US Dollar. -- Sabre (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anticipating that a number of consumers already own the previous games and in order to compensate for the cancellation of The Black Box, Valve offered gift subscriptions to Steam users who previously purchased Half-Life 2 or Half-Life 2: Episode One and then purchased The Orange Box so that they can give them as a gift to another person added to their Steam Friends list." The first clause here is way too long. the sentence needs modifying. -- Sabre (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite this he noted that Valve". Need a comma after this. -- Sabre (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two sentences of Promotion should probably be merged as they're both short -- Sabre (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10%". Percent needs to be written out in full here, per WP:MoS. -- Sabre (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to the review aggregator site Metacritic,". These are values on their site and are not claims being made, so the use of according is unnecessary here. -- Sabre (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Escapist's normally acerbic-tongued Ben Croshaw". Please remember that this is an encyclopaedia—I'm sure you'll knwo what's wrong with this. -- Sabre (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only criticisms are linked to the PS3 version. What about the others? I'd like to know about criticisms of the game itself, and not just the frame rate.
  • There isn't really much else in the way of criticism, at least as far as I can see. That frame rate thing seems to be the main thrust of all the criticism of The Orange Box. The only other one is that the single player games were seen by some as too short, and that's already mentioned. Further to that, I would point to Masem's comment at the bottom, more indepth criticism/praise of the games themselves is better suited to the individual game articles than here. -- Sabre (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Portal singled out in reception, yet no other game gets a mention?
  • Further to my comment above, the main game articles are a far better location for this. My guess at why Portal is singled out is because it was "the suprise hit" of the package. I will add something for the other two new games all the same, just not as much. -- Sabre (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Portal was indeed the surprise hit. Episode 2 was already a known quantity amongst reviewers, essentially being a continuation of the Half-Life story. Portal caught a lot of reviewers off-guard as it was advertised as just another bundled game in The Orange Box, hence why it was singled out for particular praise. Gazimoff (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 1,2 and 3 aren't formatted properly. -- Sabre (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An image of gameplay or something elese would be good as there's just two images of box art currently.

Decent article, but needs some more work, especially on the prose. Reception section is also weak. Ashnard Talk Contribs 20:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do there, I'll try to have these sorted over the next few days. -- Sabre (talk) 20:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
splitter
Here's some more for you:
  • The citations for release dates from Metacritic do not have the same details as the other sources e.g. retrieval date/publisher -- Sabre (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have anything against Metacritic, but it is not the sort of source you would use for important facts such as release dates, and shouldn't really be used throughout the article. I would suggest a site such as Gamespot or reviews. - Added other news or game sites to support all given release dates. --MASEM 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few sources which use google cache, this should be stated in the citation along with the actual dead url. -- Sabre (talk) 11:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement regarding "Still Alive" soundtrack being with Rock Band is missing a source. -- Sabre (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could do with more pictures.
    • I've added one of Episode 2 If people feel like ones of Portal and Team Fortress 2 are also suitable then I'll make some screenshots this evening and add them so that they're all consistently sized etc. Gazimoff (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the character one off of the TF2 article to exemplify its graphical style. A Portal one would probably also be useful Gazimoff, but I'm not sure where to put it, it makes the overview section look very messy when I previewed putting images there. -- Sabre (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've created a Portal screenshot and inserted it where the Episode 2 one was, as it was singled out for praise from reviewers. The Episode 2 one I've placed in the Overview section but I'm not happy about the placement. Feel free to move it elsewhere to find it a good home. Gazimoff (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • EULA is not a good abbrevation to be used, under the region-specific section. -- Sabre (talk) 11:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations do not flow / are not standardized.
  • Seems fixed.
  • It sources the Steam forum post, which is extermely unreliable and should never be used. Unless the post is made by a notable person and can be trusted e.g. Valve employee, it should be stated in the citation clearly. If not, it shouldn't be there. It is at the start of the Soundtrack section.
  • I've been doing some digging here on the Soundtrack artists. The forum post here references a similar forum post on a russian fansite here, reflecting data held on game-ost.ru here. The information from Amazon here indicates that Jonathan Coulton is the artist behind both Still Alive and the remixed version (they're essentially the same but with a different vocal track). I'm not sure how to progress this without trying to dig out a full credits list for the games. Gazimoff (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I have this link from IMDB about Kelly Bailey and this link from MobyGames about Mike Morasky. They've both been used as reliable sources before in other articles but these links are literally one line mentions. If you're happy, I'll include these, otherwise I'll suggest we just change it to Valve Employees (which is what the CD booklet says). What are your thoughts here? --Gazimoff (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is en.game-ost.ru a reliable and appropriate source?
  • Since when were clan sites considered reliable sources? See end of Region-specific versions section.
  • I've been looking as weel. Seems that although it happened and the variations are in place, none of the major gaming news outlets saw it as that big a deal. It might be worth just removing the statement. --Gazimoff (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see this one as valid. Only Half-Life 2 and Episode One were originally released outside The Orange Box, and they've got their release years in their relevant sections. The other three games were originally released as The Orange Box, only becoming available separately afterwards. -- Sabre (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've including a quick summary of the rough release frame (as to give an idea how old the other two games are) in the lead, but that's about as much as this should need; eg no mention in infobox. --MASEM 15:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Otterathome (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is relevant as two older games are being re-released in a box set.
  • And both of those games have their years of release in their sections. The information's already there. -- Sabre (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify here, are you asking for further expansion in the body of the article under each title's section in the Overview, or to add the information in the infobox vg template? If it's the former then I'd concur, while if it's the latter I'd sound caution as it is overloaded as it is. --Gazimoff (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dealt with a few of the issues, struck them off.-- Sabre (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A general comment on both sets of lists above that may help to reframe the comments. All 5 games in the Orange Box are separate notable (and, within the month, will be separate products too); each article for each game is fairly well developed, two are already FA. There's a point where it makes sense to summarize the games per the Orange Box, and where to give more detail, and I think that the level of detail already provided throughout is appropriate. Note that for reviews, most sources rated the whole Orange Box as one, but the criticism is leveled at specific games, save for the general technical faults of the PS3 release. Thus, it's hard to do a "normal" reception section that one would do for a single game, and some variations from the typical approach is needed. This also applies to pictures: each game has one or more screenshots already used in the article, and there would seem to be no appropriate use (per WP:NFC#8) to be used here without becoming excess fair use. Basically, this article is describing a wrapper - not a trivial one, to be sure, but a wrapper none-the-less and the usual approach to game rules need to be rethought for some of the comments above. (Mind you, there's many other things the reviewers above had noted to that need to be fixed regardless of how this game is approached). --MASEM 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support Personally, i think it is the best article i have ever seen, a fine masterpiece. BRTman666 (talk)BRTman666
  • Comments Just a few things I think might be worth changing:
  • "The Xbox 360 version was also released on October 9, 2007." This sounds a bit awkward; maybe change to "was released on the same day/date." --MASEM 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The PlayStation 3 version has been noted for several technical shortcomings." The Playstation 3 version of the OB, or of Portal only? That's not very clear. --MASEM 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Region-specific versions" and "Soundtrack" should be subsections in "Development". --MASEM 14:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although Masem's already moved the section, I disagree that the soundtrack should be part of the development. We're talking about a related product in the section - the official soundtrack release - not some part of the development of the game. Besides, there's plenty of FA game articles with the soundtrack as a separate section, examples of which are Supreme Commander, all three Halo games, Half-Life 2 and BioShock. Sorry, I completely disagree with that, the soundtrack should not be part of the development section. -- Sabre (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Orange_Box/archive1&oldid=201841000"