Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/System Shock 2/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 by Gimmetrow 00:57, 18 March 2009 [1].

System Shock 2[edit]

Nomintor(s): Noj r
previous FAC (03:54, 24 September 2008)

Hey everybody. System Shock 2 is an FA candidate for the third time. Hopefully third time really is the charm. I'm the sole contributor and been slaving on this article off and on. I just cant move on until it has a shiny star. The last FAC suffered prose issues and reliability issues. Eventually, the whole thing stalled. I believe those issues have been resolved and the article now meets all FA criteria. First, let me address some points that may be contentious:

  • Techspot is referenced once in the legacy section. The website runs all kinds of articles on hardware and gaming. The website is regularly read by computer specialists and according to them, "recieves over 3 million hits a month". They have received coverage in reliable publications like PC World, here. I believe it is a reliable source.
  • Rob "Xemu" Fermier is referenced once in the reception section. He was a lead programmer for System Shock 2, and the website is his blog.
  • Acronyms. This really is unbelievable. Two acronyms in System Shock 2 are never explained: OSA and O/S. I tried adding footnotes, but someone said it seemed like OR. So, I removed them. If anybody has any suggestions about this, please do, but please don't ask me to try and explain them.

Anyway, if this article doesn't pass this time, I might jump off a cliff. :P -- Noj r (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs (checker tool)
  • Need to be fixed.
done -- Noj r (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ref formatting (WP:REFTOOLS)
  • Is found up to speed.
External links (checker tool)
  • Are found up to speed.--₮RUCӨ 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Vantine84 (talk · contribs)

Prose/Layout/Style

Lead
  • "It is now recognized by critics to be one of the greatest games ever made." - While there are several inline citations provided for this statement, I still think it's pretty heavy, especially for a lead. Try rewording to something like "The game was received well by the gaming community and won numerous awards."
  • "In January 2006, Computer and Video Games reported System Shock 3 may be under development;[14] as of January 2009, nothing conclusive has surfaced regarding the purported project's status." - Consider dropping the semicolon and adding a comma with a "but" or "however" to make the sentence flow better.
  • "The game takes place aboard an adrift starship in a cyberpunk vision of 2114." - Consider replacing "adrift" with "drifting" or "damaged". Also, "a cyberpunk vision of 2114" makes it sound like someone's dream. It might be better to reword the whole sentence to say "The game, set aboard a damaged starship in 2114, features a cyberpunk theme like its predecessor."
Gameplay
  • "Each branch of service enhances certain skills: the Marines augment marksmanship and weapon proficiency; the Navy improves expertise in repairing and hacking; and a paranormal branch of military, called the OSA, hones psionic powers." - The first semicolon is appropriate, but the second and third should probably be replaced with commas.
  • "When a hack is attempted, a minigame commences where a grid of green nodes appear; the player must connect three in a straight row to succeed." - Consider changing to "When a hack is attempted, a minigame begins in the form of a grid of green nodes; the player must connect three nodes in a straight line to succeed." (I think "begins" works better than "commences" in this context, but that's up to you)
The sentence is better, but still a little unclear.
What is unclear about this? Its seems straightforward to me, but I wrote it.-- Noj r (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...a minigame begins where a grid of green nodes form..." - It's just a little ungainly, but you're probably right.
  • "Different ammunition types exist which gives an advantage over susceptible enemies." - Consider changing to "Different types of ammunition can be found, each of which bestows an advantage against certain enemies." "Bestows" can be replaced with something similar if you think it's too flowery.
If you choose to use "bestow" in this case, it must be "bestows". Also, "against" is preferable to "over".
  • "Because ammunition is scarce, the player must remain vigilant to unload weapons and carefully search rooms for supplies." - I haven't played the game so I'm unsure what "remain vigilant to unload weapons" means. Try "Because ammunition is scarce, the player must be careful when unloading weapons and remain vigilant when searching rooms for supplies." Or "Because ammunition is scarce, the player is forced to use it sparingly, and carefully search rooms for supplies."
Plot
  • "After joining the United National Nominate, the unnamed protagonist—Soldier G65434-2— is assigned to the Rickenbacker, a military spacecraft." - Strictly speaking, Soldier G65434-2 is a name. To retain a sense of ambiguity, consider rewording to "...the protagonist, known only as Soldier G65434-2, is assigned..." That also serves to get rid of those dashes, which are probably unnecessary.
Like I said before, the protagonist is not technically unnamed.
True, but a serial number is hardly a name itself. -- Noj r (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eggs infect the rescue team and integrate them into an alien communion who call themselves the Many." - It reads "call themselves", which is plural, despite the subject (an alien communion) being singular. Should read "...that calls itself the Many." Also, considering putting quotation marks around Many or the Many.
Better, but now it says "...who calls itself the Many", "that calls itself the Many" is better I think, because an alien communion probably can't be referred to as "who".
  • "The soldier awakens in a cryo-tube..." - For the rest of the plot section, consider changing all instances of "The soldier" to something more definitive, like Soldier G65434-2 or G65434-2, since we already established that he does in fact have a name. Also, the entire word "cryo-tube" should be wikilinked, not just the first half.
  • "He is immediately contacted by a survivor, Dr. Janice Polito..." - Consider changing "a survivor" to "another survivor" because Soldier G65434-2 is a survivor himself.
  • "The Many also telepathically communicate with him, persuading the soldier to join their collective." - Consider changing "persuading" to "attempting to pursuade", because it appears that the persuasion was ultimately unsuccessful.
Let's rearrange this sentence with the previous one so it looks like this: "Along the way, the soldier battles the infected crew members, while the Many communicates with him periodically via telepathy in an attempt to persuade him to join their collective."
Er, I was trying to avoid combining the sentence and making it too long. I reverted it to my former version. If you look up "persuade" in the dictionary, it can mean to urge or plead. This is the desired meaning. -- Noj r (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He is then confronted by SHODAN, a malevolent artificial intelligence who devastated Citadel Station..." - I'm not sure about this one, but I think in English grammar an artificial intelligence is considered a thing and not a person, so it should be "that" instead of "who". Per a discuss in previous FA nomination for this though, I feel that it's otherwise acceptable to refer to SHODAN as "her" and not "it".
  • I don't think "godhood" has a hyphen.
Development
  • "Early story ideas were similar to the novella, Heart of Darkness." - Probably don't need a comma here.
  • "This design was materialized in the fictional military branches." - Unclear, consider changing to "In System Shock 2, this design was incorporated into the fictional military branches."
Better, but "was materialized" doesn't make perfect sense.
  • "...tension existed regarding job assignments." - Consider replacing "existed" with "emerged".
  • "Not all setbacks were localized, a demonstration build at E3..." - Consider replacing that comma with a semicolon or a dash.
Reception
  • “...'diverse enough to demand instant replayability." - Make sure you close the quote with quotation marks.
  • "Critics described the game as quite frightening." - You don't need "quite" here.
Legacy
  • Does Legacy need to be its own section, or can it be part of Reception?
  • "...many of which have demanded a sequel." - Consider replacing "which" with "whom".
  • "The two titles also share similar plots..." - Plots is kind of an ungainly word, try replacing with "The two games share certain plot similarities..."
Now it reads "The two titles also share plots similarities and employ audio logs and encounters with ghostly apparitions to reveal backstory." Better, but try "The two titles also share plot similarities, and both employ the use of audio logs and encounters with ghostly apparitions to reveal backstory."
It seems fine the way it is. Why make it wordier when it conveys the intended meaning? -- Noj r (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.

Sources

  • Does the article need so many inline citations in the lead? There's nothing contentious in the lead that isn't repeated later, so I'd recommend removing them and inserting them somewhere else.
  • I noticed that when you used the cite video game template, you put the quote first. There's no established guideline on this, but I feel that the reference reads better when the quote goes last, that way the reader sees the game's title, developer etc. before the dialogue. Many video game and film FAs go back and forth on this, so I'm just curious as to your thoughts.
  • I noticed at least two instances in the article (#13 in Legacy and #42 in Development) where an inline citation was placed in the middle of a sentence, not after a punctuation mark. Per the MOS, "inline citations are generally placed after any punctuation such as a comma or period, with no intervening space."
There's still at least one instance of this (#54 in Legacy).

Support All in all, the prose is good, and I'm happy with the reliability of all the sources, except for "Techspot", which I'm not familiar with. Has its reliability been established? Also, I'm satisfied with the fair use rationale for the images, with the caveat that the second one (SS2 Concept) uses a {{Non-free 2D art}} license tag, which is fine except that there is a more detailed concept art tag available, {{Non-free character}}. Either one is fine honestly. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 13:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe I have addressed your comments, with the exception of one. I left the hyphens because I think there is enough commas in the sentence already. I also believe having a bunch of "Soldier G65434-2" or "G65434-2" in the plot would make it a chore to read. A couple of answers: See my rationale above for Techspot, SHODAN is consistently referred to as a female, and the concept art has the 2D rationale because the text commentates on the inclusion of horror in the game and not the main character. Cheers, -- Noj r (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that SHODAN should be referred to as female, but I believe "artificial intelligence" should be referred to as "that" in this case, not "who". Good point on the image. I left some more comments above regarding prose. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 06:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All done, except some where I left comments above. -- Noj r (talk) 07:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm convinced. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 09:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have addressed your comments. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • pending... --20:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Comments by Bignole
  • "(commonly abbreviated SS2 or Shock 2)" - I don't see a source for those anywhere in the article, and it's a bold claim to make for anyone who doesn't know the game (like myself).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 12:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. I havent seen other FAs do this; i.e. Half-Life 2 (commonly abbreviated HL2), Ocarina of Time (commonly abbreviated OoT), etc. -- Noj r (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, 1c. In searching LexisNexis I found a significant number of sources that could be used, especially as there is a lack of in depth critical reception. (I've also found some refs that show it was a top-ten bestseller in Irish and US markets as well, which might mean that the assertion that sales expectations were not met should be detailed further. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the critical reception not in depth? Do you mean sales data? I do not have access to LexisNexis and have done everything I can to find and include sales information. If you would like to provide prints or links of those articles, please do and I will incorporate them into the article. Otherwise, I believe everything that can be found has been included in the article. -- Noj r (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c requires the topic be "well-researched", and "characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic". This article completely neglects print sources such as newspaper reviews from the time period. There's also some original research, such as citing MetaCritic for "Reviews were very positive and lauded the title for its hybrid gameplay, moody sound design, and engaging story". "I found all the sources I could online" doesn't mean that an article meets criteria. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are few print sources, the article is not well researched? That is a joke. You are opposing because you assume there are relevant print sources with information to be found. You do not know that such articles exist. Since when did websites become second-class resources? They are a type of literature too, but because the text is pixels on a screen instead of ink on a page means it is somehow less informative/reliable/whatever you choose. Give me a break. Now, how is citing metacritic equate to original resource? Did you click the link? This is why websites are better; instant fact checking. That reference is completely cited; a 92% approval rating is an unabashed positive aggregate and if you read the review summaries, critics cite gameplay, plot, etc as reasons for their enthusiasm. -- Noj r (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with David Fuchs here; a game published in 1999 really needs some print sources (though this doesn't discount web versions of originally printed material). You have a few, like PC World, CVG, and GamePro, but I'd expect more newspaper and non-gaming magazine sources given the lack of web-like materials in 1999 (even sites we consider RS today may not really have been RS back then). There's a bunch that I can see through google news (Year 1999 hits only), so adding some more mainstream considerations would be helpful. --MASEM (t) 16:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does a game released in 1999 necessitate more print sources? Tell me what is wrong with the sources I have already used. Is it because they are websites? That is not a valid objection. Websites are just as viable as a print sources. If you can prove to me the article suffers currently because of a lack of print sources, I will work on it. As it stands, the article lacks nothing that hasn't already been found. Also, I am at work now and will not be able to replay until after 5. -- Noj r (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even today, print sources are often more in-depth than their web counterparts, and even ten years ago much less content was on the web. I'm not opposing because you use web sites, after all they are easy to verify and find, assuming they don't get moved around or deleted, but because there is a demonstrable amount of content not covered by the web sources here, and without it this fails 1c. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm at my lunch break so I can reply on my iPhone. Since you said the article needed more print sources and the article is already well sources with web pages, I assumed you believed web pages were less superior to print sources (and you still might). I assume the only comprehensive issue you have is with the public response to the game and it's sales; these are the only parts I had trouble locating. Masem's google querry brought up nothing helpful, so we have your LexisNexis search which you believe holds critical information. Provide links or copies of the mentioned articles and I will integrate them.. Will that satisfy 1.c for you then? -- Noj r (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/System_Shock_2/archive3&oldid=1077422017"