Talk:All Ghillied Up/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Haleth (talk · contribs) 14:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review this. Taking down notes, will be back with commentary soon. Haleth (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Thank you for picking this up and I look forward to comments (first time trying to write an article on a specific level, tad tricky given the limited coverage of the level unlike say No Russian). Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Before I get a proper review underway, I do have a question though, with regards to the broadness of its coverage. The initial reception section is very thin, with only one source cited. Outside of the ones already cited in the Call of Duty 4 article, I'm sure there are dozens upon dozens of reviews for the original game out there in the wild. Did none of them discuss All Ghillied Up in their reviews at all, even in passing? Haleth (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * From memory I remember searching (using ctrl+F) through some of the reliable reviews of Call of Duty 4 (mostly those listed on the main article) and that was the only thing I sizeable part I found. However, it is possible they described/noted the level in some capacity without mentioning the name so I'll have another scan over now. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 18:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have greatly expanded the intial reception . The reason I did not find much of it before was because hardly any of the intial sources actually state the level name. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Lede

 * I find the sentence a bit clunky and could use breaking up: first sentence concerning when where and who, the second sentence explaining what the mission is about.
 * ✅ Split into two sentences: Set in Pripyat, Ukraine, in 1996, the player assumes control of then Lieutenant Price and is assisted by their superior Captain MacMillan. The player must deal with enemies stealthily or overtly or avoid engaging them altogether.
 * In that context, could you swap must to may?
 * ✅ Replaced with "may"


 * I suggest grouping together statements about Alavi as the level's creator, and about him being responsible for the discreet implementation of enemy AI.
 * ✅ Have reorganised and rewrote parts of the lead. (Now the structure is: first sentence, setting and characters, level content, development then critical reception)
 * The claim "unusual for its stealth gameplay", is that Alavi's or another developer's own description of the mission, or feedback from the game's critics?
 * Removed, I falied to verify the claim (iirc it is was new for the series to have steath levels but cannot find a secondary RS cite)

Level content

 * I don't feel the second part of the sentence connects to the statement of being outnumbered by the platform that well. I suppose you can frame the stealth mechanics as a specific in-universe response to the platoon, but from memory I am certain the duo planned the entire mission all the way to the hotel as a covert one to avoid detection. Alternatively, you may simply emphasize on the ghillie suit part and write about it generally without going into minute detail about proceeding from one node to the other.
 * I see what you mean here but the reason I think this sentence is important to include is becuase critics specifically highlighted this section of the game (infobox caption, intial recception 2nd para, etc). Though decided to trim this sentence ("They proceed past further areas containing inactive tanks, helicopters and shipping units, whilst dealing with enemies.") as less noted parts of the level.
 * A little bit "crufty" (if that can be a word) tone. Perhaps, and must crawl under a series of these vehicles to avoid detection?
 * Instead of going into minutae, I think you can just say, they eventually reach the abandoned Polissya hotel to prepare for an assassination? Unless critics in the sources specifically discuss the last few buildings and dogs too?
 * Omitted the mention of Polissya hotel (since mentioned in plot, did not want to repeat now just a generic hotel) Changed to "They eventually reach an abandoned hotel to prepare for an assassination attempt"
 * Second paragraph is entirely uncited, but it is not placed under plot. The reader may presume that it is not meant to be a plot summary and thus it is not exempt from the necessity of citations to secondary sources. Is it necessary though to put these details in a separate paragraph, when the first paragraph can be streamlined to incorporate the second paragraph's contents by trimming prose that is already duplicated under plot section?
 * Okay I defintely see where you are coming from here. Could I cite parts of this second para to the game/level itself simliar to plot, since these two choices like the plot itself are entirely scripted. I do not think we have any MOS guidelines in terms of level content (unlike plot) since we have hardly any levels dedicated to specific levels (Category:Video game levels)
 * I think for the paragraph, you can cite the PC Gamer retrospective piece on the franchise's two most famous levels, since they devoted one paragraph about Captain MacMillan's behaviour and reactivity to the player's actions. Maybe emphasize on the significance of the reactivity mechanic to give context to the fact that it is a 2007 game and that kind of coding sophistication was uncommon in most other contemporary video games.
 * ✅ Added part about NPC reactivity to player action using PC Gamer source (. Also cited Kotaku article for other parts since it also discusses player choices.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 08:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added part about NPC reactivity to player action using PC Gamer source (. Also cited Kotaku article for other parts since it also discusses player choices.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 08:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Plot

 * Some of the details from level content are duplicated in the plot summary (for e.g. arriving in the abandoned Polissya hotel to prepare for the assassination mentioned twice, but not mentioned in the lede). Or maybe it's the other way around since it sounds like story content as opposed to gameplay/level content. It's fine for the lede to repeat some of the stuff discussed in a section since it serves as an introduction, but not between level content and plot.
 * Believe this is now ✅, tried to reduce repition between early level content paragraphs and plot section.
 * -> Grammar, preparing -> to prepare?
 * ✅ Added to "to prepare"
 * ✅ Added to "to prepare"


 * How so? Unless it can be elaborated on and supplemented with character analysis from a critic's review, that point feels very random to me.
 * Gotcha. Should I attribute this to Ars Technica under the plot section. Or perhaps shift it to the reception section?
 * Probably shift it to reception, since it appears to be an original analysis by the critic on the game's themes as opposed to developer commentary on what they were trying to achieve and convey.
 * Atrributed and moved to reception

Development

 * I checked the source. It says "born from study". So is it supposed to convey that Alavi copied the context-sensitive distance mechanic used in these games, or was he simply inspired by them?
 * So yeah from looking at the PC Gamer sources it says "Born from study of Half-Life and the Metal Gear Solid games ...". The wording is somewhat imprecise as to whether they are talking about inspiration from other series or copying. The phrase in this instance seems to suggest the level was created or formed after Alavi studied games in those series. Thoughts on wording it something like: Alavi drew inspiration from the Half-Life and Metal Gear Solid video games series when creating the level or Alavi studied games from the Half-Life and Metal Gear Solid video games series when creating the level, plus maybe a mention of simliar gameplay mechanics?  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The second one is probably a better fit, since it is a good direct paraphrase of what the source said, whereas inspired can be a bit more ambiguous.
 * ✅ Incorporated second version
 * No need to split the paragraph I feel, since it is still about Alavi's code.
 * ✅ merged paragraphs
 * -> which Alavi considered to be a success.

Reception

 * -> highlighted "All Ghillied Up" as a standout among other levels in the game?
 * ✅, changed
 * - GameDaily's Steven Wong noted that players will experience different outcomes depending on their skill levels?
 * ✅, changed
 * What mechanic? Video game stealth mechanics in a general sense, or a specific mechanic innovated or popularized by the game?
 * ✅, I believe Burford was just talking about the mechanic of being able to go prone (I really like that incredibly tense prone section in Modern Warfare because of what it means for the game. While more recent modern military games have removed control options like lean, prone, and even jump, Modern Warfare doesn't just retain them, it actually implements them in interesting ways). Changed to "Burford also complimented the "incredibly tense" prone section as implementing the prone ability in an interesting way"
 * Fair enough, it's clearer now.


 * Maybe rewrite the sentence to say, "the degree of agency the level offers players" or something along similar lines?
 * ✅ Changed to "The publication particularly praised the pacing and the degree of agency the level offers players"
 * -> why past tense? Is it no longer a fan favorite?
 * ✅, changed
 * The words "for its tension" feels out of place in the sentence. Maybe a simpler sentence like "because it encourages players to avoid combat instead of embracing it"?
 * ✅ Adjusted, split into two setences simpliying He opined that "All Ghillied Up" is Modern Warfare's best level because it encourages players to avoid combat instead of embracing it. Tyrer went on to call it the "tense, thoughtful soul of the series" for its message of violence begets violence.
 * I don't believe that citing the results of a reader's poll from a publication which has been questioned for its reliability or quality is appropriate for a GA class article.
 * ✅ Removed.
 * Should break the sentence up with a comma somewhere.
 * ✅ Added comma "fail screen"

Discussion

 * Thank you very much for the comments and feedback I will start addressing them. . Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 11:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, and take your time. I went back to the merge discussion and noticed that other editors have brought up a few sources to support their decision to keep the standalone article, including for example, one from Gamasutra. I don't believe that they have been cited in the current version of the article. Have you reviewed the aforementioned sources before to determine whether they are relevant for inclusion? Haleth (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have resonded above to your comments. I have also added two more sources both from Gamasutra that appeared in the merge discussion (one of them was a case study on game pacing so was a tad tricky trying to incorporate it, but there was some commentar there). Regards   Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added new comments. Just a reminder that you have not yet actioned the changes to the second paragraph of the development section. Haleth (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . Apologies thought I had done the development stuff but I must have accidently self-reverted due to different revisions of the article.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 08:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for you comments again, I have responded/addressed to them above. Let me know if you have any more concerns or queries. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 08:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There were a couple of lingering typos, and I thought the ghillie suit reference should be moved to the front of the second paragraph. I've directly addressed them since they are minor stuff. It's a pass for me. Well done and thank you for putting up with me. Haleth (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One more thing. I recommend that this Kotaku article, which is about the documentary discussing the development of "All Ghillied Up" and has an embedded YouTube video link to it, be included at the bottom of the article as an external link. Since a reliable source like Kotaku has highlighted it, it is fine for inclusion. Haleth (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Great thank you very much for the thorough review of the article. I have added the external link now as well. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 11:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)