Jump to content

Wikipedia:Peer review/Flight Unlimited/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flight Unlimited[edit]

This peer review discussion has been closed.
The article just passed its GAN, and I'm looking to take it to FAC before too long. I plan to expand the article a little—nothing too major; just a few paragraphs—but I thought I'd get feedback now on what it needs to stand a chance at FAC. Comments on prose, content, images and citations are all welcome, but, if you see something else, feel free to bring that up as well. Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Images

  • Is there a specific reason for the skewed box art? If you can find a better one, you should replace it. A search turned up this one only.
  • Flight Unlimited DOS.png could do with a stronger description and non-free use rationale. You could use a level and mode name under "Description" to better identify the source. You can strengthen the rationale by mentioning that this is the "Three-Way View" (I assume), and that the image shows specific gameplay elements (name them) talked about in the section, which would otherwise be hard to understand for readers. The image caption should reflect that (mentioning the name of the view in the image caption would also be helpful). Additional points for using a "Reception" comment in the rationale, so that the image shows something that a reviewer liked or disliked. The "ghost plane" isn't exactly visible in the image: if possible, replace the image with another version, in which the "ghost plane" is bigger.
    • I'll try to take a new image in the next couple of days. Question: should I keep it in the prettier 3-D Cockpit view, or change it to the duller-but-more-relevant Three-Way View? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't have to use the Three-Way View just because it's more relevant. Just go with the one you like better, and try to make the rationale as strong as possible. :) If you run into problems or have questions, I am happy to help. Prime Blue (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something needs to be done about Seamus Blackley.jpg. Either crop it losslessly to show only Blackley, or use Seamus Blackley February 2006.png. Either way, prepare for negative comments toward those photographs, as their quality is subpar. I think you can savely remove "(pictured here in 2005)" from the caption.
    • Thanks for finding/uploading that other Blackley image. I was going to just crop the existing one, but, after doing so, it looked even worse than it did already. I swapped it out for the new picture, but it seems a bit too large, actually. It kind of dominates the article. What do you think? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The third image caption would avoid repetition if it was something like "The flight instructor was designed to respond to the player in real-time. It provides guidance in the midst of an improperly performed maneuver, such as the Immelmann turn demonstrated above."
  • All images need alt text.

Sources

  • Again, consider splitting up multi-page sources into individual sections. I know it is a lot of work, but it will guarantee a smoother FA, as that is almost certain to come up again. Still your choice, though.
  • Some print sources are missing the issue numbers (e.g. Computer Gaming World).
  • Outside of that, I could find no problems with the sources. So if the direct quotes above are dropped, you will have passed the source review of the FA as well.

That's it. Prime Blue (talk) 06:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]