Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge
Crimson Skies: High Road to Revenge[edit]
I have nominated this article for peer review because I believe the article may soon become FA. In addition, I'd appreciate any detailed instructions on taking screenshots, as I believe the lack of meaningful pictures is one of the article's only serious flaws. Other than that, I'm not really sure what else can be done with the article. I am extremely interested in any feedback other editors may have, as this is my first attempt at an FA and any commentary would be appreciated. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Brief comments from Jappalang
I took a brief quick look and the contents look good. You are using a bevy of primary (Microsoft and FASA) and secondary sources (IGN, GameSpot, 1UP, etc), and they are pretty reliable, so good job there. The contents are a basis for a developed effort to try for FA; at the moment, some parts are skeletal and require beefing up, especially the Reception. The sales also seem to be lacking (a big deal for some reviewers). There are some parts where primary sources are used to back up statements. Take care that these are not presented as facts, but as opinions. For example, in Gameplay, "Project lead Jim Deal explains that the arcade design of Crimson Skies serves to make the game easy to learn, as well as to place its focus on action instead of the physics of flight." makes it seem as if the game is easy to learn due to the arcade design (ignoring the redundant "serves to" and the wordy "as well as"). As it comes straight from the primary source (the game designer, and reported by his publisher), it is contentious and should be rephrased as "Project lead Jim Deal explained that he adopted an arcade design for Crimson Skies in an attempt to make the game easy to learn, and to focus it on action instead of realistic flight physics." or something like that. There are also a bunch of formatting and typos in the text. Jappalang (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've addressed the quote you pointed out, as well as other redundancies I didn't even notice before in the Gameplay section. As for the reception section, I added some refs to indicate the game was a "cult classic," I couldn't find any more accurate sales data. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to fluff up the Reception further. Expand on the prominent goods and bads of the game. Pick up a few more published sources (FA reviewers prefer them), such as Computer and Video Games, EGM, and perhaps a few big-name newspapers like New York Times (sure some might consider newspapers too "mainstream" to know about games, but then that would be a "layman's" reception of the game, which could outscale industry perceptions). Consider getting rid of the lists in "Official Tie-in" (should be lowercase for "tie-in") and Multiplayer sections if prose is workable. Several paragraphs consist of 3–4 sentences. Although that is the recommended minimum per paragraph, on a wider screen, the paragraphs look thin. Consider reorganizing them. I have replaced the cover box image with the PAL version; the art is the same but at least there is no advertising on it ("Best XBox Live Game"). You might want to beef up the rationales of the screenshots as right now I can foresee difficulties with them in an FAC. All in all, I recommend getting a copyeditor after some more work is done. Jappalang (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the new game cover art. However, I couldn't find any active members on WP:VG/M that have the needed reviews. (If you know another source, that would help tremendously, though, with this article and others.) I have however beefed up the Reception section, although I could use help with the phrase "The game's single player campaign was generally well received, due to its 'compelling' storyline and less frustrating design of missions that involve the defense/escort of an ally." I'm having trouble finding a less awkward way of saying that. I'll get to editing other sections as soon as I have the time. Thanks a lot, --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I managed to find the following...
- Careers in the Computer Game Industry by David Gerardi and Peter Suciu—Composer David Henry said that visual cues fail as an aid to conceptualize high-speeds and (not said but implied by him) that the scores in the game were written to convey the rush of speed in such situations.
- Video Game Art by Nic Kelman and Henry Jenkins—might have some comments on the art in the game (as indicated by Google search) but no previews available... Try finding it at your local library...
- New York Times has articles that cover the PC game,[1][2][3] but sadly none for the Xbox... Oh well. Jappalang (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- I managed to find the following...
- I agree with the new game cover art. However, I couldn't find any active members on WP:VG/M that have the needed reviews. (If you know another source, that would help tremendously, though, with this article and others.) I have however beefed up the Reception section, although I could use help with the phrase "The game's single player campaign was generally well received, due to its 'compelling' storyline and less frustrating design of missions that involve the defense/escort of an ally." I'm having trouble finding a less awkward way of saying that. I'll get to editing other sections as soon as I have the time. Thanks a lot, --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to fluff up the Reception further. Expand on the prominent goods and bads of the game. Pick up a few more published sources (FA reviewers prefer them), such as Computer and Video Games, EGM, and perhaps a few big-name newspapers like New York Times (sure some might consider newspapers too "mainstream" to know about games, but then that would be a "layman's" reception of the game, which could outscale industry perceptions). Consider getting rid of the lists in "Official Tie-in" (should be lowercase for "tie-in") and Multiplayer sections if prose is workable. Several paragraphs consist of 3–4 sentences. Although that is the recommended minimum per paragraph, on a wider screen, the paragraphs look thin. Consider reorganizing them. I have replaced the cover box image with the PAL version; the art is the same but at least there is no advertising on it ("Best XBox Live Game"). You might want to beef up the rationales of the screenshots as right now I can foresee difficulties with them in an FAC. All in all, I recommend getting a copyeditor after some more work is done. Jappalang (talk) 12:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've requested a copy of Careers in the Computer Game Industry from my library; it'll take a small bit to get there. 'Till then, I believe I've addressed many of the most critical issues with the article. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 06:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Brief look-over by David Fuchs
Considering this game and Halo were the first two games I played when I got my Xbox, it has a special place in my heart :P Some suggestions:
- Copyediting. Do this last, but redundancies and pointless additives should go in the final cut ("Nevertheless", et al.) It also helps to keep it more neutral.
- Some reorganization might be good. For example, moving the paperback to development.
- Expansion. Jappa's got my comments down.
- Images: Nonfree images need to meet WP:NFCC. See recent video game FAs for how to write good fair use rationales.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've attempted to strengthen the fair use rationales, although most of it is just repeating what's said in the template (which is also being used in another FA, SSBB). As for restructuring the article, I think though the book doesn't deserve its own article (notability), it's worthy of its own section and wouldn't fit well within the dev section anyway.
- On an unrelated topic, does anyone know where I can get reliable sales date for this video game? I feel like the info presented isn't specific enough. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- You'd have to look for NPD figures, but they can be hard to find. By the way, what about incorporating this ref into the article?[4] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- This game has way too much developer info for its own good. Info and ref added. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- You'd have to look for NPD figures, but they can be hard to find. By the way, what about incorporating this ref into the article?[4] Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I've been off for a while; Penny Arcade should be reclassified as "drug" instead of "webcomic." Anyway, I've got just a few more major improvements before I close the peer review down; thanks for all the help and advice! --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)