Talk:Half-Life 2: Lost Coast/GA1

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

Images

 * Both image Fair Use rationales check out.
 * I would replace Image:750px-Hl2 lostcoast menu.jpg as the "story" element of the article doesn't really require illustration. This image should be replaced with something that better illustrates the lighting changes made to the engine (like something in the church).
 * I like the FUR for the fisherman, very specific.
 * Per MOS:IMAGES, images should alternate sides.
 * If you want, we can discuss here some image options (to better show the engine), I'm happy to upload a few and test out which might work best.

MOS/Layout

 * The lead doesn't actually summarize the article. It summarizes the basic idea and release information, and then the sections below explore other material in detail.  This article is short, so I can understand the reasoning, but I think it can be tinkered with to develop some new sections and a longer lead.
 * Concurrent with this, the first cite should be moved out of the lead.
 * Half-Life 2 is linked twice in the lead.
 * I'm not sure the external links meet WP:ELNO. As I mentioned above, the bit-tech material might be included in the references, if editors agree that it is a reliable source.  The eurogamer bit seems kind of duplicative, and if anyone can get a hold of the print version of the May 2005 PC Gamer, replaceable.  I would say we should have the download link and maybe something else.  Seems excessive to have 4 el's.
 * The plot section is too long. I know this seems harsh, but LC was basically one level of a shooter on rails.  The plot of HL/HL2 was rich and complex, with a good deal of subtle 'seen not heard' exposition.  LC, on the other hand, was more straightforward.  As a result, I don't think that we need to devote as much space to it as we do.  We should lay the article out to respect the fact that this was a technology demo (of sorts).
 * As such, we should probably write a new section on the "engine", rename the section on "development" to "development and release". In the first one, we can point to HDR and Source in a hatnote and talk about the changes in technology (and the degraded performance for non DX9 cards) for this demo.  We can summarize, briefly, what HDR is and why it was important.  For the second one, we can include the development timeline and discuss the release (along with the original intent for the level and the ATI Radeon/NVIDIA bit).
 * Game titles need only be wikilinked once. Most are wikilinked twice or more in the text.
 * "Lost Coast is a 98 MB compressed download..." MB could be spelled out or (if this is not desired) wikilinked.
 * Why are the system requirements noted in the infobox and in VG Requirements below?

Small issues

 * "It was originally slated to take place between the levels "Highway 17" and "Sandtraps", but was dropped." when the lead is rewritten this should be moved below and summarized as something like "It was originally slated to be released as a level in HL2" or something.
 * "Persons who received Half-Life 2 as a gift were not eligible to download the game." Another sentence that should be moved out of a rewritten lead.
 * "On May 30, 2007, Valve made an announcement that Lost Coast along..." This paragraph is confusing. As I understand it, LC was released to people who bought the game in 2005.  Then, in 2007, Valve released it to ATI card owners, but the text says here "...although the level was ultimately released to all owners of Half-Life 2 as a free download.".  the next sentence talks about how the game was released to NVIDIA owners.  Does that matter if it was already released to everyone?  Or was that prior to the wide release?
 * "The add-on was also a part of Half-Life 2: Game of the Year Edition" Is it in the orange box?
 * "along with the first eleven levels of Portal..." Do you mean to say that it was released with the first 11 levels of portal AND all those other games? Or the first 11 levels of portal and some other number of levels of the other games?
 * "the small town of St. Olga (a town based on Sozopol, Bulgaria)" Citation needed. :) I should expand on this.  I know that several devs were from SE Europe and many, many elements from HL2 are from there--you can even take photos of old buildings and hold them up to screencaps and not see much difference.  I have no doubt that this town is modeled after a real town, but it needs a source. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Half-Life 2: Lost Coast was developed as a playable technology demo, intended to showcase the newly-added HDR lighting features of the Source engine that were first implemented into Day of Defeat: Source." This is an awkwardly worded sentence.
 * "He is also more than twice as detailed as the characters seen in Half-Life 2." (From the fisherman caption). This needs a citation.

Overall/Suggestions
Ok. In order for this to become more comprehensive, I suggest a rather complete overhaul. The lead needs to be purged of the "release" information and rewritten to summarize release, development, plot, and commentary/other. A section needs to be written explaining the engine and how that relates to this level. A section needs to be written on the release (can probably partially be made from material in the lead now). the plot section needs to be dropped to maybe a paragraph. You might also consider adding a gamplay section and very briefly summarize and analogize to the contents of Half-Life_2. Remember, this should be roughly complete as a standalone article.

I'm going to place this article on hold for now. The article is short, so an overhaul of it is less of an effort than for one that fills 80kB. The 7 days is a suggestion, if some progress is being made or we are having some discussion here I'm happy to let this slide as long as the contributors of the article wish. I don't consider this a strongly negative review of the article. I think the article as it stands helps to explain an important new feature (commentary) and contextualize the subject properly. But I feel it should be improved before it can meet the Good article criteria. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 04:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I now realize that this article requires a significant amount of work. I think it is best if this GAN is failed, so I can work on it on my own time. When I think it's ready, I'll renominate it; or maybe with the suggestions you've given, it could perhaps even be ready for FAC. Gary King ( talk ) 05:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, failing it now. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)