Talk:Unreal Tournament/GA1

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 09:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)


 * First online multiplayer game I ever played, cool to see it here, will take a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This image could need some source and author info on the file page.
 * "Unreal Tournament was designed as an" Why not just say "is an"? Since this is not a section about the development of the game, such wording seems out of place.
 * Done. Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Why isn't the "story" of the game described? The intro gives the setting:
 * Done. Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Weapons include Enforcers, Rocket Launchers, and Rippers, which fire ricocheting blades." Why do you only describe one in detail?
 * Do I need to change anything here? Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * " A special weapon is the Redeemer" How is it "special"? Is it described as such?
 * Should I change anything here? Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Even on dedicated multiplayer servers, bots are sometimes used to pad out teams that are short on players." This seems to be more relevant under "player community", doesn't seem to have anything to do with the default gameplay.
 * I couldn't find anywhere to fit it, so got rid of it. Not sure it's necessary anyway. Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * More to come, but are you there, ? FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm still here. The guide book says there's no story other than simply being selected to fight in the tournament. The book describes the Redeemer as the most powerful weapon in the game and it's in "scarce supply". Should I change "special" to "most powerful"? As for the other three weapons, surely only one needs description as it's obvious what Rocket Launchers do. Maybe I should change Enforcers to something else? I can't find a good enough description: I can't simply state it's a standard pistol as that could mean a number of things. Adam9007 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The gun description is fine then, but the intro video (see link above) clearly describes a "story" (or set up) for the game. If it isn't in the book, perhaps you can cite a transcript of the voice-over and summarise it here? FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the full text of the intro. For the setting, we can also use this: Hakken (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I don't think it's somehting that can be ignored in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Should I put it in the gameplay section or its own section? Adam9007 (talk) 03:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Depends. If it's long enough, then create another section, if not, put it in the gameplay section. Hakken (talk) 17:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You already mention a bit about the plot in the gameplay section ("to challenge the current champion, Xan, a mysterious being with exceptional skill"), so I think it's ok there. And it should only be a few lines of summary anyway, not enough for a whole section. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I haven't abandoned this; I've been busy with other stuff (including another article I'm hoping to get to GA). I'll see if I can get to this soon. Adam9007 (talk) 04:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll review the rest when the above issues are fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I doubt this page can be nominated yet as its name does not correspond to the naming standards of Wikipedia (see: Doom (1993 video game)). I suggest renaming it to Unreal Tournament (1999 video game) considering the announcement of another game with the same name (Unreal Tournament (upcoming video game)).--Adûnâi (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It can be renamed soon after passing, Wikiedia i not a crystal ball. If the game was already out, it might be a different story. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How's the article now? I don't know what to do about the image, but it's a commons file. Adam9007 (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you write "done" or such under each point when they are dealt with? Af for image description, I mean add a template like here (just copy it): So what the source is (the uploader) becomes more apparent. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure what you want me to do with the image. I don't know how the author got it or when or anything. Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You can just add the template, then add the uploader's name under author, and own work under source. And add some kind of description. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do I add a local description or do it on Commons? Adam9007 (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On Commons. It is mainly so that the source information is more apparent. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems the plot section is usually placed below game play in other articles.
 * "This requires that the team protect their flag carrier very well from enemies" Seems like stating the obvious/redundant, since you already say "Both teams must defend the base from incoming attackers and get into the other team's base, take their flag and return to base"?
 * " Up to four teams compete to out-frag" You have not used the temr frag until this point, may be unfamiliar to readers.
 * "Four "bonus packs" were released, each adding maps, characters, or features. For example, bonus pack 1 (released on February 25, 2000[20]) adds "relics" as mutators.[21] Relics are special items that grant a significant advantage to their holder. They include (but are not limited to), the Relic of Vengeance, which creates an explosion when its holder dies, the Relic of Regeneration, which regenerates the health of the holder, and the Relic of Redemption, which makes its holder re-spawn elsewhere with full health and weapons intact when they would normally die.[22][23] Bonus Pack 4 adds a new version of Xan.[24] Unreal Tournament was re-released in fall (autumn) 2000 as Unreal Tournament Game of the Year Edition, which includes the first three bonus packs and mods such as Rocket Arena, a one-on-one combat mode.[25][26][27]" Some of his info should be in the section that deals with the release. Dates and such should not be under gameplay.
 * I made some edits to improve wording.
 * "With a budget of $2 million and 350,000 lines of C++ and UnrealScript, Unreal Tournament took 18 months to develop.[1]" Why does this info come after the parts that focus on the release?
 * "Unreal Tournament went gold on November 16, 1999,[40] but the team believed sales would have been higher had it been released in October.[28] The Mac version went gold on December 15, 1999.[41]" Why is this info not under reception? If you move it down, it will also solve the bullet point above.
 * Some of the reception text seems to be out of chronological order. You have "In 2004, Unreal Tournament was inducted into the Computer Gaming World Hall of Fame." followed by "and was named by the site one of the best games of 1999."
 * There is a good deal of duplicate links throughout.
 * "and remakes have been attempted by fans" Doesn't seem to be mentioned outside the intro.
 * You there, ? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. Have I missed anything? Adam9007 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The points above are unanswered. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think most of the points have have been addressed (have I missed anything?), but I don't see why the "going gold" stuff should be in Reception, as it has to do with the development. I'm not sure how I can integrate the sales bit into Reception. Adam9007 (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, but if you don't say something like "done" or "fixed" under each point, it is very hard to follow whether these are actually fixed or not. And it might also be harder to remember yourself. For example, I can see nothing has been done about the image template on Commons yet. FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Damn it, I keep getting distracted doing other Wikipedia stuff when I should be focusing on this. Unfortunately, I'm busy for most of the week, but I'll see what I can do tomorrow. Adam9007 (talk) 03:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No rush from my side, as long as this isn't completely forgotten. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I've done the commons image stuff. Have I missed anything? Adam9007 (talk) 02:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, the fixes look good, but I still don't see what game sales has to do with development. Sales happen after a game is released, no? It is clearly about reception. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's just a mention that the developers thought they'd be higher if the game was released a month earlier. I'm not sure how I can integrate that into Reception without sales info. Should I just get rid of it? Adam9007 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, what does things happening after release have to do with development? I think the info can be kept, I just don't understand what the problem is. FunkMonk (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to reception. Not sure how well it integrates though. Adam9007 (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the main issue was about the game going gold, which is still under development. FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Going gold" is part of the software release life cycle, about the game being ready for release. It's not post-release (and nothing to do with sales) so it belongs in development, surely? Adam9007 (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, then I've misunderstood, which means you should explain the meaning in parenthesis, just a link is not enough. I've worked in the game industry (though not in an Anglophonic country), and I never heard of this terminology! So well, disregard my earlier comments, but add an explanation. FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Explanation added. Is it good enough? Adam9007 (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good now. Perhaps state clearly somewhere that the original Unreal game was mainly a single player game, to make the contrast with this game more apparent?
 * Done. Hopefully the provided source is good enough... Adam9007 (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me now, so will pass. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)