Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Drowned God: Conspiracy of the Ages/archive1

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492

Comments from Crisco 1492

• developed by Epic Multimedia Group plc and published by Inscape. - Why include plc? We generally don't included Ltd., for example.
• Drowned God received mixed to positive reviews. Critics praised its concept and visuals, while its gameplay, audio, and puzzles were given a mix of positive and negative reviews. - mixed to positive reviews. ... mix of positive and negative reviews
• The Ogopogo – My Journey with the Loch Ness Monster - Red Link to The Ogopo (book) instead? Linking to Ogopogo is really low value to readers.
• sat on the text - Really idiomatic. Any more encyclopedic wordings?
• This background information may be more useful near the beginning of the paragraph (the paragraph beginning "Horse's initiation into the concept of an alternate history")
• a division of Time Warner, - Which?
• Inigo Orduna and Anthony McGau - Who?
• Who replaced Burroughs?
• Anything to expand the gameplay section, perhaps more info on the puzzles?
• ended his own life a decade after the game's release. - Just say "killed himself" or "committed suicide". Ended his own life is highly euphemistic

I'll try and finish this tomorrow. I've been copyediting as I go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the insightful and challenging remarks. I removed the plc and rewrote the reception paragraph in the lead. As for the Ogopogo, I linked it there because it has a mention of Horse's book in its pop culture section. I think there may be enough to write a stub for the book, however, and will look into that some time this week. I fixed the idiomatic and euphemistic language, and rearranged the background.
• As for the other comments: I'll look into some of the reviews for more details about gameplay. I haven't been able to find any more information on what division of Time Warner it was. Perhaps I should just remove that part? It's not the most precise language, since it's a semi-casual interview. On the other hand, it is from the Horse's mouth. Sorry, couldn't resist. The source I used doesn't have any info about who replaced Burroughs as narrator either. There is the list of credits at MobyGames, which has the entire voice cast, but doesn't specify who did what. But are you suggesting Orduna and McGau should be removed because they are non-notable people? If that's the case, wouldn't that also apply to the Burroughs replacement? I don't have strong feelings about it, just trying to clarify what the issue is with those names. Thanks again for commenting. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Re: McGau and Orduna. I was thinking "more contextual information would be nice; especially if we know their previous work, if any" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• I added a good chunk of new production information, including more on McGaw, which is apparently spelled with a "w". As for Orduña, the only thing I could find was this, which might not be a super tight RS. What do you think? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• That is very much a personal web site. Whose? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like an artist/musician named Al Agram. If you look here you see he's got a photo of "Anthony McG from Babel Media". But there's no way to verify anything. I hate when all I can find are enticing tidbits like this, but there's no other information. Think I should pull the Orduna part, or leave it as is? I'm pretty stuck now. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Don't use that source, yeah. BTW, you've got some footnotes not in numeric order now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Whoops, fixed. Okay, so the potential remaining issues are the Time Warner division, Burroughs' replacement, and Orduña. I will start working on the gameplay section, but are those three items dealbreakers? I'm pretty sure I've exhausted all available resources looking for more information on them. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Okay, I've expanded the gameplay section out to describe more puzzle details and mention the cutscenes. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• No, they aren't deal breakers. The new bits look okay.

• I copyedited the reviews section, to eliminate the use of "said". These are, after all, written reviews. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I think say and state are broadly defined as expression with words, not necessarily confined to the spoken word, but that's a minor issue. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Images look okay, but the FURs could be developed a bit more. You may be interested in {{Non-free use rationale video game cover}} and {{Non-free use rationale video game screenshot}}, which can help you flesh them out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I actually used that video game screenshot nfur template when I uploaded the screenshot, but I added a little more explanation to it. I didn't know about the cover template though, that's handy. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hellknowz's resolved comments

• Reference #4 should probably be {{Cite interview}} with applicable fields, like |interviewer= and |subject=
• Reference #6 uses Jan 1, 2009 notation for archive date, while others use full month name
• Reference #17 says Nov 24, 1996, but citation says November 25, 1996
• Reception section probably needs an introduction, like the lead's "Drowned God received mixed to positive reviews.", otherwise it just dives straight into individual reviews. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I fixed everything except for the Newsweek date discrepancy. The original source is the printed magazine, which was November 25. That link is just to an online copy of it, which has a different date. There's a second link in that called article details that has the information about the printed source. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Development section comes before gameplay/plot? That is very non-conventional for works of fiction and video games. I guess there is nothing wrong with that per se, but if you don't read the lead, then it starts with "The game's concept ..." and doesn't explain anything until much later.
• "a face with an arrow point down or up to pick up or place" you broke my brain :)
• "Horse killed himself a decade after the game's release" -- it sounds like he killed himself because the sequel wasn't released.
• "straight out of "Adventure 101"" this may make no sense to a general reader not familiar with video gaming
• I know it's very hard, but reception reads better when it is logically combined by topic -- graphics, sound, difficulty, gameplay, plot twists, humor, etc. instead of summarizing reviewers one after the other. Like "GameSpot and IGN agreed backdrops were awesome, while GameRadar called it mediocre. IGN praised skybox and Joystiq criticized animation. Now onto sound..." If you know what I mean. But that's a big rewrite, so I won't hold my breath.
• "Allgame rated Drowned God two and a half out of five stars.[16]" -- I'm not sure there is a point to mentioning just the score unless it's significant.
• Do you mind if I try to reword certain other parts of the prose myself later, instead of trying to explain it all here, like certain gameplay bits? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. Yeah, I know having the development section first is pretty different, but since the backstory is so interesting and really the major component of the game, I think it works. I'll take a look at it though and see if I can smooth it out a bit. I'll also see about reorganizing the reception section. As for the rest, have at it. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've addressed everything above except for the reception rewrite. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten the reception in a sandbox page here. What do you think? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I keep committing to things and then getting distracted :) Yeah, the reception rewrite certainly looks good to me. It definitely combines the similar aspects and makes understanding which bits were praised and which weren't. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Some references are repeated in subsequent sentences. Usually, only the last one is kept. (Personally, I leave them in comments in case of future editing. I did on like that here.) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a good way to go about it. I converted the rest of the duplicate refs to comments. I also put in the rewrite of the reception section. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 06:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Adressed comments from GermanJoe

1. To start with the most pressing issue, moving "development" to the top has several disadvantages and should be reversed to the more common order, some problems of the current structure:
   1. Ideally the lead would summarize the main text sections in a similar order as the main text, actually they are out of sync.
   2. With development -> Story/Gameplay -> Release the articles shifts back and forth between "real life" and in-game information , better to keep each type of content together.
   3. "development" is not needed to understand the story or gameplay, the intro sentence of "story" is sufficient.
   4. A minor point, but a lot of games articles already uses the somewhat standardized order.
2. lead "Drowned God is based on a forged manuscript written by [game creator] Harry Horse in 1983" ==> "the game's creator"
3. "After facing legal issues ..." ==> vague, what kind of issues? No need for details, but the general type and severity of the "issues" should be clear.
4. "Horse shelved the [concept] until playing Myst and 7th Guest, ..." ==> not sure, "concept" is the correct term here - he had a story and (maybe) some ideas, that's not necessarily a complete concept
5. "[Critics gave Drowned God mixed to positive reviews]. Its concept and visuals were widely praised, while its gameplay, audio, and puzzles received more varied responses." ==> The first sentence is redundant, everything is covered by the detailed second one.
6. Lead lacks information about later product development, release and fan reception - which would help to fill the third paragraph.
7. Development "...written several [of] children's books ..." ==> grammar
8. "...[and been awarded]...award" ==> "and had received" to avoid repetition
9. "The game's producer, Algy Williams, hired "fiendishly difficult" puzzle expert Chris Maslanka ..." ==> needs rephrase for clarity
10. avoid repetition - hire, hire and puzzle, puzzle
11. "William S. Burroughs was originally scheduled to narrate the game, but died just before he was [to begin recording]." ==> grammar. Also out of curiosity: Who took over narrating?
12. Story "The central idea of the game is that human history has been manipulated to cover up [the facts]." ==> "certain facts" or "some facts". The facts are not specified yet.
13. "Bequest Globe" ==> needs a brief description, what kind of device is that? Does it look like a regular globe? The Globe is mentioned as important tool, so should have a bit of additional info.
14. "The player is also given a number based on their name" ==> The player's name is translated into a numerological code.
15. "Above and below [this] central chamber..." ==> "the central chamber" (hasn't been mentioned for 3 sentences).
16. "The player must [then] enter four worlds ..." ==> redundant, the narrative is chronological by default. Also the sentence is long and has lot of info, split after "Kaballah".
17. "...one of the two opposing groups..." ==> what groups? Kether and Malchut are groups?
18. "or enter a new central room [at] the starting chamber." ==> "from"
19. Release "...but bugs and poor [developer support] ..." ==> "customer support", developer support is ambiguous.
20. Reception "...while giving a more [lukewarm] ..." ==> too informal
21. "GameSpot reviewer Vince Boardy said the game [initially sounded like it would not only be "incredible", but that it] might also "raise awareness" about supposed ancient worldwide conspiracies." ==> remove the middle part, "incredible" is not a review.
22. "Boardy praised ... Ramsey praised" ==> avoid repetition
23. avoid "complaint", as it can imply unjustified criticism or a too emotional critic. "criticized" or "noted" are more neutral.
24. "Boardy said the primary problem with the audio was that some of it was overused, with "background effects" that "drone on mercilessly", and spoken dialog, that, while well written and well acted, "must be listened to over and over again"." ==> mixup of quotes and paraphrases. The whole sentence is a quote, so it should be quoted as one. (in general: try to avoid any changes to quoted text, including splitting of minor parts from a longer context).
25. "... calling the game a "treasure trove" of "challenging and frequently innovative" puzzles." ==> again, using splitted quote bits is a bad idea. He didn't say <"treasure trove" of "challenging and frequently innovative">, those are 2 different, unrelated remarks. They can't be combined into a new context.
26. trim small quotes of 1 or 2 words, where possible and paraphrase them (unless the quoted term is really that special).