Talk:Hogs of War

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hogs of War/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Red Phoenix (talk · contribs) 17:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Calling dibs on this one, as a returning the favor to Lee Vilenski. Video games are what I know best, and this is not one I have ever heard of, but after a quick skim I found it quite interesting. Let's see if we can break it down and evaluate it for GA status. Give me a little while to start commenting, as I'm actually recovering from COVID-19 at the moment, but I should hopefully feel up to starting the review very shortly. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Red! Don't stress yourself too much, especially if you haven't been well! I appreciate you picking this up, it's a joint nomination.

We did have a prior nomination that you can see if we have adequately fixed the issues involved. Thanks again. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first question, before I begin: I saw this is the second GA review, and I read the first one and have to ask, was there any follow-up with the reviewer? I saw no comments back to the reviewer, who it looks like was a little quick to go for the auto-fail without any hold for improvement period or a lot of specifics on what was wrong. Red Phoenix ^talk 17:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Lankyant has done a very good job of fixing all of the items described, but after it's been failed, it's been failed. Thus why we've opened a second GAN. If you see anything that was on the previous GAN that we'd need to address, let us know. :) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubts that there has been work about the points. It simply appears that the reviewer needed more teaching on how to properly conduct a GAN review, as the process is more about article improvement on specifics than just a straightforward pass/fail in more than 90% of cases. That aside, let's begin the review:

Review

Criterion 1: Well written

• Use of italics for titles of video games and websites needs to be consistently used. In the phrase "Worms series of games" in the lead, Worms should be italicized as it's the name of a video game series. Toward the end of the reception, GameRant should also be italicized as the name of a website.
  • Italics fixed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Between the first two paragraphs of the Gameplay section, three sentences in a row start with "Each". Consider rephrasing to improve sentence fluency.
  • Rephrased. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• and finally medics that can... Eliminate "finally" - adverbs are seldom used in encyclopedic prose.
  • Done. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• tanks and semi-aquatic and stationary turrets I'm unclear as to what is a semi-aquatic turret and how it differs from a stationary turret? Are they one kind of turret or two different kinds?
  • I think they are, but this is an example list so I've removed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• By MASH tents, do we mean medic tents or field hospital tents? "MASH" is a colloquialism but not accurate as that term refers specifically to the system used in the Korean War. Encyclopedic prose usually favors having fewer colloquialisms.
  • Changed to "hospital". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• In the same sentence as the note above, the "but without weaponry" kind of comes out of nowhere. I would presume there are areas with protection where weaponry can be used, but that's not entirely clear based on the phrasing of these two sentences.
  • I've reworded to make this flow better and make more sense. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Regardless of which chosen nation is victorious, all pig nations celebrate the end of the war, and now, a time of peace. Despite the end of the war, a remaining soldier feels like nothing has been accomplished by the war. So a couple of issues here. I would consider eliminating "and now, a time of peace" as being fluff - surely it's assumed at the end of war is peace? The second sentence uses the word "war" twice and sounds repetitive.
  • Reworded Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• The game began development So the game developed itself?
  • Reworded Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Development was split between the PlayStation version and PC It's a bit unclear based on the way this is worded that two different teams developed the game until it's kind of snuck in later in the sentence.
  • Reworded Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• In reference to "3D engines", consider adding a link to game engine, as the layman would not know what a game engine is.
  • Linked Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• The First World War setting was inspired by Blackadder Goes Forth and that the setting was good for black comedy. It seems unclear to me a few things based on the way this is written a couple of things: was Blackadder Goes Forth a black comedy? Its article doesn't say it is. Basically, are these two things connected or are they two separate implications? Either the connection or separation needs to be made more clear.
  • Reworded Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• "The Liberty Bell" should be in quotations as the name of a shorter work.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Habgood chose this music as it was out of copyright and free to use due to its age and because it fit the mood and tone of the game especially due to its use in Monty Python's Flying Circus. This is a nasty run-on sentence; can this be split up a bit?
  • Reworded Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• The number of polygons that could be used, especially on PlayStation, meant that in order to allow the players to have range and a high draw distance meant that the number of players and other assets had to be cut. High or low number? Also, the sentence reads confusing with two uses of "meant".
• Not an actual problem, but just check me, is "focussed" a correct British English spelling?
  • Wiktionary suggests it is, and that's how I've always spelt it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• The initial build of the game was described by Habgood as "slow and hideous" with no gameplay elements and the pig characters were tall and humanlike resulting in them being scary. This sentence also runs on a bit. Also, later on, I'm questioning the descriptor of "cuter-looking pigs" - is that a specific quote from the source? It just doesn't seem like a professional way of describing or one that fits pigs in a war game; that's why I'm wondering.
  • I have reworded to make this flow better. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• At this point in 1999 Gremlin Interactive was taken over by the French company Infogrames which took a long time but was a benefit to the game as it provided more time for development. Another run-on sentence that also provides a lack of clarity. Did the acquisition of Gremlin by Infogrames take a long time? How would that provide more time for the development of Hogs of War? As we don't really have points in time for all the builds and such, I don't think "At this point" is necessary, just start with "In 1999,".
  • Similar to the above Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Duplicate link of Rik Mayall in the Reception section. Also, if we're going to say the reception included reception of Mayall's work "notably", why aren't there any quotes in the reception about it?
  • I have purged all duplinks. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Check the entire reception section for duplicate links from above. Worms is linked an extra time.
  • As above. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• The game drew many, often negative, comparisons I wouldn't call two comparisons "many, often negative". Especially when it sounds like the GameSpot review further up drew a positive comparison.
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
• Because the legacy section is so short, I'd consider bundling it into reception as a "Reception and Legacy" section, as Development and release was.
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Criterion 2: Verifiable

• First paragraph of Development and reception does not end in a citation. Looks as though it may be unnecessary anyway as the precise dates are covered later in the section.
  • I've added a citation regardless. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Several citations incorrectly do not use italics for websites, likely because they are filled in as publishers instead. Ref 11 Retro Gamer is a magazine, for instance, and should be italicized; same as GAMINGbible in ref 10 and Den of Geek in ref 29.
  • I shall fix this up last. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Criterion 3: Broad and focused coverage

• It seems excessive and undue that we have as much prose on the parodies of each nation as we do the rest of gameplay. Personally I would consider axing the whole subsection while moving a sentence or two up into the gameplay so that it can be highlighted that there are real-world parodies without spelling it all out in a way that dominates the content of the article. Otherwise I'm concerned we don't meet criterion 3b of the WP:GACR.
  • I shall remove. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• Just confirming, no Japanese release at all and no North America release on Windows?
  • Japanese, definitely not. I don't think any of the Infogrammes games made their way out there. North America PC release may have happened, although I did have a look through sources and there wasn't a date for such a thing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Criterion 4, 5, and 6: Neutral, stable, illustrated

• Images look good, but consider using a template for the fair-use rationale in the screenshot simply to make it easier to read and understand how WP:NFCC is met.
• Please consider adding alternative text for accessibility reasons.
  • Added. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:17, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
• No other concerns in this section.

A bit of work to do here, I think, so I'll put this on hold. As an FYI, I usually try to do some copyediting as part of the process and that includes after some work has been done on the notes, so I'll try not to get too tickytack with every wording issue in notes as I'll address a few as I re-review. I think we're on the right track here; most significantly some prose work to get to GA-quality encyclopedic writing but completely doable. Keep me posted and feel free to ask any questions you need and I will follow up. Remember, the goal is to make this article the best it can be, and I look forward to us working through this process together. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:28, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

All looks fair - seems easy enough to fix though. I'll get to work tomorrow. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I have covered the above Red Phoenix Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski nice work Lee! Sorry I've only just appeared I had a busy weekend. Thanks for the review @Red Phoenix, appreciate your effort Lankyant (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably stole your thunder. Apologies. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Steal away mate :D Lankyant (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick work! Give me a couple of days to come back and evaluate. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

So, after a good look I will want to go through and do a copyedit pass myself before I can pass the article. A lot of it looks good, but the prose still has some minor awkwardness to me. That being said, a good copyedit pass will fix that and I'll take that on myself in the next day or two. Red Phoenix ^talk 01:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

@Red Phoenix lovely stuff, thanks for the review and your help with the copyedit! Lankyant (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Final comments

After a big copyedit pass, there are a couple more things that really need to be taken care of, but these will be easy:

• Something I thought was actually quite important I found in the Retro Gamer source that I strongly suggest be added: One of the game's developers mentioned that Hogs of War sold well in Europe but not in North America, and that also contributed to the decision not to release a sequel. If you do cite these, and I suggest that you do, make sure to mention these are the words of said developer, as we don't have concrete sales figures to actually go off of.
  • I've added two sentences. To be fair, he doesn't exactly say that was why there wasn't a sequel, just that the game didn't get global sales and that isn't tennible for games nowadays. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• There are a number of reviews that specify the publication said this, or that, but we have the author's name, so it really needs to be "this person of this publication said that". Of course, make sure to mix up the style a little bit to avoid repetition, see WP:VG/REC.
  • You mean like Steinburg also called the graphics "strikingly primitive", and the game's graphics were "dated". - this is because we have already stated which publication they were writing for earlier in the reception (see second sentence of the section). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    • No, the opposite: GameRevolution said, or GameFan said. We have the names of the people who wrote those articles; they're the ones who "said", not the publication itself. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, I agree. Fixed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• The last statement of the first paragraph in Reception is missing a citation.
  • Cited. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lankyant: and Lee Vilenski I think we'll be pretty good from there. Once this is wrapped up I'm expecting that I will be passing this article. Red Phoenix ^talk 11:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Red Phoenix - looks like I've completed the above. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Looking pretty good. I’d say now we’re clearly at GA status - congratulations to both of you! Red Phoenix ^talk 20:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)