Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/System Shock

System Shock

I recently rewrote the article and brought it to "good" status. I am looking to bring it to featured quality. Any suggestions are welcome. JimmyBlackwing 18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite nearly perfect. An FA if I ever saw one. Couple things

• There is a system shock 2, but it is not mentioned in the legacy. Might be worth adding there. Done
• The infobox only has one rating. According to the IGN source, it was released in Europe and Japan. What are those ratings (or did they even have any)?
• One of the 3Ds is written 3d. Done
• I know this is a little unrelated, but the navbox at the bottom has a red link. Can you get rid of it or start the article? Done

--Clyde (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, and "And the perception of Shock was cemented..." looks weird. Maybe "And the perception of Shock was cemented..." Done

--Clyde (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments. I was getting worried that the peer review would be closed without any feedback. I've taken care of 4/5 of your complaints; #2 is impossible to fix, due to a complete lack of sources. JimmyBlackwing 23:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wasn't too hard to find a couple more ratings but there is a large majority of the more common ratings that are unknown for the game. Crimsonfox 12:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I also looked through it again, and the only other problem I saw was in reception. Basically, it's missing the section on what critics didn't like about it. I know there probably isn't much, but this still has to be present in order for the article to be neutral.--Clyde (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• With only four reviews, it's tough to find anything. Next Generation Magazine said nothing negative about it, and out of the PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World excerpts I found, they didn't either. The GameBytes review has a tiny bit of criticism that I will try to work into the article, but I can't do anything more than that. Also, GameBytes isn't a particularly, shall we say, "overly notable source". I don't want to give its comments undue weight, which would not be hard. JimmyBlackwing 20:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I take that back. After re-reading the Game Bytes review a few times, I see no usable criticism. Since, as you have mentioned, criticism is absolutely necessary, I guess I'm going to have to find more contemporary reviews. The problem is, I don't know what sources would have reviewed it, besides the ones already present. JimmyBlackwing 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• I see what you are talking about (I saw it), and I'm guessing you are not using it perhaps because it's just annoyances(?) I'm not sure. I think there's just not enough online reviews to find anything in critcism. I guess this article has my support as an FA, but you may want to consider adding those comments.--Clyde (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, their criticism amounted to "slightly long loading times" and "a few sound glitches". Not really notable enough to warrant inclusion. I'm inquiring about Computer Gaming World's criticism, but I doubt I'm going to find anything. Until I do find some kind of criticism, though, I'm going to stay away from FAC with this article. You're right that it should be added, and the folks at FAC will tear this article apart unless I get some in there. It would be easier if old magazine reviews weren't so impossibly hard to find. JimmyBlackwing 02:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll do some looking myself and let you know if I find someting, but I doubt I'll find anything you haven't already looked through. Trust me I know (Duck Hunt was fun).--Clyde (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• I have (somehow) located a contemporary review from Games Domain, which I used in conjunction with the GameBytes review, to (somehow) cobble together a tiny bit of criticism. Together, the two reviews form a kind of consensus that the problems they brought up were notable. Is this adequate, or do I need to find more? JimmyBlackwing 09:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• ....wow (kudos for finding another one). Considering that two reviews is about half the total reviews available, I think it will pass. I guess it's worth saying to keep looking for other sources, since there's a chance that someone won't agree that two sources are enough. It's up to you, but you have my support.--Clyde (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. I'll probably nominate the article in the next few days, and see what kind of response it gets. I'll notify you when I do. JimmyBlackwing 22:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)