Talk:Dungeon Keeper 2/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 17:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take this one on as well in the next day or two. If the last one was any indication, this should be pretty close to ready. Canadian Paul 17:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Looks good for the most part, just two things worth mentioning:

1. The first two sentences of the lead read "Dungeon Keeper 2 is a strategy game developed by Bullfrog Productions and published by Electronic Arts in 1999 for Microsoft Windows. It was released in Europe and North America in June 1999." Other than the release date of June 1999, none of this (type of game, developer, publisher, platform, release locations) is mentioned in the body of the article proper (some items are noted in the infobox and some are implied, but they should be explicit). Since per WP:LEAD, the lead cannot mention material that is not present in the body of the article, this should be mentioned explicitly within the body. I also note that nowhere in the main article does it state explicitly that Dungeon Keeper 2 is a sequel to the Dungeon Keeper or part of a series. It's worth stating (doesn't need a citation) in a sentence or two, because a reader coming here with no idea what Dungeon Keeper is would be very confused, especially if they skipped the lead.
2. In terms of focus (criteria 3b), as well as WP:VGSCOPE, I'm a bit concerned that the gameplay section contains excessive detail. I find this to be most notable in the various "examples" of gameplay concepts that are provided, which leave me wondering what the justification was for choosing those particular examples (it may be in the references, which would be fine, but since I can't see them, I don't know) or whether omitting them would harm the reader's general understanding (it might even help by making things less complicated/detailed). For example, I think that the "rooms" section strikes a good balance, but is it necessary to describe all four different types of combat behaviors or would simply saying "monsters follow one of several different combat strategies/roles" be sufficient? I'm somewhat on the fence about this, so I want to hear what you think, but I can provide additional examples if necessary.

Other than that, I think that this is pretty much good to go, so I'll go ahead and put it on hold for a period of up to seven days. Canadian Paul 18:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: To which examples are you referring? All the info is in the sources (a lot of it is in the manual, you do have the manual? Also, I'm not sure if the "How to attract your creatures" is separate or not, as I have it on PDF which includes the reference card), but I think I just picked the examples. I think simply mentioning that creatures use one of four battle strategies is sufficient for general understanding, though I imagine some may disagree. I think I need to put this in the context of the sequel to Dungeon Keeper, because that's what it is. Much is the same and yet there are also a lot of differences (I should probably also mention that mana is a vital life force for the dungeon too). I'm not sure how I can say the game is a real-time strategy game in the body.

One nitpick (and might be outside GA's scope but I'm going to raise it anyway) I have is the use of American English. This game was developed in the UK by a British company with British people. Just about everything about this game is British. Although that's probably not enough for WP:TIES, I can still see that being an argument (in my experience, the "nationality" of TV programmes is determined by their production, and I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to video games). The article about the first game uses British and its situation is no different. It just feels strange that two very closely related articles use different Engvars. Or should I not worry about it and leave it as it is? Adam9007 (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding ENGVAR, it probably should be in British English given what you've raised, but I agree that the ties aren't strong enough to overcome WP:DATERET. I think if someone went through all the trouble to change the variety of English, I probably wouldn't revert/contest them, but I wouldn't go out of my way personally to change them. I'd say leave it for now. Of course, if you ever end up taking these to WP:FAC, you might get told something different, but I wouldn't worry about it otherwise. As for VGSCOPE, I think for GA you're fine with criteria 3b for now, but it's something to keep in mind in case you do ever take this further... it might be the first thing that ends up getting mentioned. Anyways, I think that your edits have satisfied any concerns that I had about this article, so I am going to go ahead and pass it as a Good Article. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. Canadian Paul 20:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Canadian Paul: Fortunately, there are scripts that can do it quickly and easily. If I were to boldly change it, I'd probably use Oxford Spelling, as I see no need to change ize to ise. Should I RFC this? As for FAC, you think there's a chance this (and the article about the first game) could become a FA? Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally I don't have an opinion on the ENGVAR - I don't think it needs to be changed but it could be and I would have no objection to it because it makes sense. I think that unless there's an active dispute, an RFC isn't a good use of everyone's time. If you think it should be changed, then go for it. If you're not sure, wait until someone else comments and go from there... better to do nothing and end up having to do the same work anyways later than to put the work into changing it only to have it reverted (even if it is quick and easy). As for FAC, I'm not very familiar with the process, but it would probably take some work and at least one peer review (two if WP:VG is interested in doing one to match their standards) before it could be nominated. FA has much higher, stricter, and nit-pickier standards than GA and it's designed for (usually constructive) criticism, not praise, so you've got to be ready for it. All I meant by my comment was that I suspect the depth of gameplay would be a concern at that forum, even though by GA standards it passes. Canadian Paul 13:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)