Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flight Unlimited II/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 09:25, 12 July 2014.

Flight Unlimited II

 * Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

In 1995, Looking Glass Technologies' Flight Unlimited was a surprise hit that challenged Microsoft's dominance of the flight simulator genre. The game featured a groundbreaking computational fluid dynamics engine coded by Seamus Blackley, a former researcher at Fermilab. Fast-forward to 1997, and the company was hoping to capitalize on their past success with Flight Unlimited II—but a lot had changed. Blackley had been fired over a dispute with management, and his physics engine had been scrapped. Instead of being an aerobatic "playground" like its predecessor, Flight Unlimited II was a simulation of a living airspace. Critics enjoyed it, but its sales didn't come close to those of the original game.

This is my first FAC since 2011, when Flight Unlimited became the first flight simulator FA. Flight Unlimited II's brevity compared to that article can be chalked up to the sources: there simply were not as many in-depth articles about this game. I have no idea how high FA standards have gotten in the last three years, but I hope that this article is close to meeting them. I look forward to the reviews. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In terms of length, this is perfectly fine (assuming it's comprehensive). My nomination below, on a considerably more obscure film, is less than half the length of this article. Referencing looks reasonable (although that is not an in-depth source check). Someone may end up reviewing the article for close paraphrasing and copyright violations, which was introduced a few years back after certain articles caused issues, but you shouldn't take offense to that; everyone who hasn't nominated in a while, or who has never nominated before, gets one. I'll do an image review and a prose review.


 * Image review
 * File:CGfog.jpg - Not very effective at illustrating the caption as this is from a different program (and completely unrelated to flight). I'd nix this.
 * It's an illustration of distance fog taken from the article on the topic. Because the subject is kind of technical, I thought that a visual aid would help. I'm a bit wary of removing it just on the grounds that it isn't from the game.
 * File:Berryessa rain.jpg - Needs to be downsampled to have a maximum of 100k pixels, per WP:IMAGERES
 * I've never been very good at dealing with images, so I have no idea how to do this. Could you explain further?
 * I'm on the road ATM, but I can do it when I get back home (tomorrow, most likely). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Fu2 front.jpg - Do you still have a direct link? Otherwise I'd find a way of attributing the scan without including a link
 * I've never edited that page, so no. I removed the link.


 * alongside several hundred artificially intelligent aircraft directed by real-time air traffic control. - any way to rework this to avoid suggesting the player also controls the other aircraft? (check the collocation).
 * Took a shot at this. See what you think.


 * Per WP:LEDE, this should only have a 2 paragraph lede.
 * I don't see how I could do that without dramatically cutting important summary information. Also, where did you get a character count below 15,000? I copy/pasted the article body into a character counter and it came to over 25,000.
 * With references and wikimarkup? I use User:Shubinator/DYKcheck to get only "readable prose" (i.e. the actual prose portion of the article, excluding references, markup, the TOC etc., and thus a more accurate count of the actual "meat" in the article) and I get 11,034 characters for the length. 25k includes all of your reference mark-up (the tags, for instance ) and other things. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I cut out most of the second paragraph from the lead. I don't think it's an improvement, but check it out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I made one slight edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * with Microsoft Flight Simulator - perhaps "with the Microsoft Flight Simulator series
 * Most of my sources refer to the Microsoft Flight Simulator series as a singular game, but I changed it anyway.
 * Well, at the time was it a single game, or was it already a series? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It had been a series for many years. The thing is that most of the sources I used in the article saw Microsoft Flight Simulator as a single product that received yearly upgrades. But it really isn't that big of a deal. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)


 * ZOAR - standardize whether you put this in quotes or not... also, what's it short for, if anything?
 * Fixed. Also, according to one of the article's sources, ZOAR has no meaning. It's probably a pun on the word soar; but I have no idea.


 * Radio communications between air traffic controllers (ATC), artificially intelligent (AI) planes and the player occur in real-time: a "sophisticated audio splicing system" gathers pre-recorded voice fragments into contextually appropriate sentences. - You've already glossed several of these in the earlier section; I'd just use the abbreviations. Also, try to avoid excessive linking
 * Done.


 * The team planned to add more terrain and planes and a multiplayer feature after the game's release. - but...?
 * No multiplayer feature or new terrain ever materialized. Unfortunately, I don't have a source for this, so I couldn't add it.


 * Duplicate links: San Francisco Bay Area, air traffic controllers, artificial intelligence, Jane's Attack Squadron
 * Done.


 * Thanks for the review. I responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just a couple replies above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * More responses. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on prose and images. Looks good to me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Me too! =D }I Mr* &#124; (60nna) I{ 12:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Too close for missiles; I'm switching to guns.
Ayyyy, here I am. Looking at the article now. Tezero (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It could be made more clear what the teapot image represents. I took it that it was something rendered in ZOAR - or even some abstruse screenshot of FUII.
 * Took steps to address this. See what you think.
 * That's better. Tezero (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "The game's terrain area was increased to 11,000 square feet, roughly 300 times the size of its predecessor's" - Increased from what? I thought the technology wasn't reused.
 * It wasn't. However, since the game is a sequel to Flight Unlimited, the comparatively larger terrain size is technically an increase.
 * I'm still uneasy, as "the game" suddenly refers to the original Flight Unlimited here. What about "The game's terrain covers 11,000 square feet, roughly 300 times the size of its predecessor's"? Tezero (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "He summarized, "Overall, this simulation is somewhat above average"" - It'd be prudent to add a mention of him scoring the game 4.5/5.
 * Actually, the CGM review to which you're referring is a 3.5/5. CGW, the 4.5/5 review, called it "a must-have for any general-aviation enthusiast."


 * Citation #10 (PR Newswire) needs an accessdate.
 * Done.


 * Is the reliability of the individual author at Adrenaline Vault established, per the publication's placement in the goldenrod zone at WP:VG/RS?
 * VG/RS lists AVault as a "former premier site"—in other words, reliable without question. Only the newest incarnation of AVault is noted as having reliability issues. Since the source used is from the '90s AVault, I don't think this is a problem.

Tezero (talk) 03:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I rewrote the problematic sentence. Cut the 11,000 square miles part entirely, since it was redundant with the Gameplay section anyway. Also, I scraped a few last details out of the sources. See what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Support; the additions all look fine and my concerns have been fixed. Tezero (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Well sourced and well written article. --Carioca (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

 Comments Pass - Review train, coming through!
 * Your prose is certainly better than mine (especially at the FLC you reviewed the other day); I suppose there's a reason you've copyedited for me before, rather than the other way around.
 * "Blackley's CFDs system was "all black box spaghetti code" that the team could not reproduce" - they weren't trying to reproduce (recreate) it at first, right? They were trying to expand on it/extend it/build on top of.
 * Good point. Changed to "understand".


 * "but this causes pop-in issues that the team sought to avoid" - I know what pop-in issues are, of course, but the average reader might not have heard of that term- describe or link to the right section of Draw distance (if you do that, drop the link in the next sentence).
 * Done.


 * That sentence and the next use present-tense, which is technically fine since the engines do still do those things, but feels jarring since the whole rest of the paragraph is in past tense, including the last sentence which is also about what the engine does (did).
 * I changed one instance of past tense to present, but, aside from that, I think this is all grammatically correct. I agree that it's somewhat jarring, but I don't think I can do anything about it.


 * Why not link Computer Gaming World in the last para of the dev section, instead of in the reception section?
 * This was an accident. Fixed.


 * Link Jane's Attack Squadron in Aftermath, since you haven't linked it yet outside the lead
 * Jane's is stealth-linked in the first sentence of development, under "Flight Combat".


 * You don't need to list the author as "Staff" when no author is given in references (10, 17, 19)
 * I thought it looked better, but ok.


 * Drop the allcaps in ref 12, 13
 * Done.


 * Why italicize a non-magazine website (ref 2, 11, 22, 30, 32, etc.)?
 * Fixed.


 * Actually, not sure if it's required, but consider adding publishers to all your magazine/newspaper cites
 * Done.


 * While I'm being nitpicky about non-required fields, I like having ISSNs on magazine cites, like you would have ISBNs on books.
 * I have no idea how to find these, so, since they're not required, I'll leave them out.


 * Three redirects that don't look intentional- the Piper plane, square miles, and single player in the infobox.
 * Fixed.


 * Two thumbs up for archiving your sources! -- Pres N  22:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's all! I'll add a source review below, just to clear it out. -- Pres N  22:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Source Review: Pass
 * It all looks fine, actually- you've used all these in FAs before. The only one that's close is the Adrenaline Vault site, mentioned above, which as you mention was an RS at the time these sources were written, though the zombie version of the site isn't necessarily. Flightsim.com isn't well-known now, as a niche website, but was/is certainly reliable, especially for the time period. -- Pres N  22:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Big thanks for the review. Tried to address your concerns. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Changed to pass. -- Pres N  21:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Review by DarthBotto

 * The two paragraphs of the lead are professional. However, I would prefer there to be a third paragraph detailing the general reception of this flight simulator. Would that be possible, or do you have a specific reason for not including one?
 * It was originally 3 paragraphs, but Crisco pointed out above that, according to WP:LEAD, the shortness of the article entails a 1- or 2-paragraph lead. I cut it down accordingly. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, if the consensus is for two paragraph, then I suppose I'll be agreeable. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I very much like the direct and neat presentation of the gameplay. However, I did notice that the first Flight Unlimited included a paragraph about flight lessons. I might want to see that expanded further into an additional paragraph, but I would like to hear what JimmyBlackwing has in mind about keeping it to two paragraphs, given his extensive history with not only this title, but the franchise as a whole.
 * The paragraph about lessons and modes in FU was necessary because of the structure of that simulator. Unlike FU2, its point wasn't to simulate a freeroam world. It had small maps and its gameplay was mode-based, almost like an arcade game. Plus, its lesson mode was billed as one of its core features. FU2's lessons weren't a big deal at the time, and the game wasn't split up into modes. I'm not sure what I could include in a third paragraph that isn't already covered. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, there seems to be more in detail on the first Flight Unlimited page, with mentions of additional instruments and maneuvers. I admittedly prefer the expanded take of that page, due to its broader scope, while also not treading into game guide territory.
 * FU2's new technology pretty much took fancy maneuvers off the table. However, the game's cockpits were upgraded quite a bit, which I apparently forgot to address in the Gameplay section. I added a sentence; see what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the lack of fancy maneuvers in the sequel, as I admittedly am an outsider. That new sentence drawing parallels to the real-world counterparts does add a lot of substance. Other than that, your reasoning is sound, so I'm giving this section my stamp of approval. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I noticed this while reading the gameplay section, but for numbers leading up to one hundred, I'd prefer the long-hand version. For example, "There are 25 adventures in total" could have that number changed to "twenty-five". This would be applicable to the entirety of the article.
 * I tend to reserve plain text for numbers one to ten. This seems to be an AP-Chicago quibble more than a WP:MOS issue, so I'd prefer to leave the numbers as-is, if possible. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Kind of amusing that my wiki crowd that has been building the Valve Corporation articles try to use the long-winded method of writing numbers. AP-Chicago is indeed a viable path, so I'll let it go. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * From the development section, everything seems in order save for one detail. The Electronic Entertainment Expo is mentioned in the final paragraph, but there seems to be some mention about the reception and critics questioning certain decisions. Do you believe this might be better suited for the reception section? This isn't a terrible gripe of mine, I'm just curious as to what you think. If you believe it is fine where it is, then I won't argue.
 * In general, I like to keep pre-release reception in the Development section. My opinion is that it helps to make the development timeline clearer for the reader, since pre-release reception at trade shows is relevant to team morale, game completeness and the business aspect. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah. You'll probably see a different approach to what I did at the Dota 2 article, where pre-release and post-release are a part of the same coin. Very well- let it stay. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Other than that, the development section looks fantastic.
 * Thanks! JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * With reception sections, I typically prefer a general statement about the overall critical reception such as "moderately positive" to lead things up. For this, I would call upon the works of GameRankings and Metacritic.
 * I'd normally agree, but FU2's situation isn't that simple. Metacritic's page for FU2 is blank, and the GameRankings page contains only four reviews, two of which are questionably reliable. Making generalizations about a game's reception based on that is pretty dubious, so I chose to leave them out while writing the article. I wasn't able to locate a general description of the game's reception anywhere else, either. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, certain titles do have extraordinary circumstances that are exceptional to this rule of thumb. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Are there additional reviews for the reception section? If so, I would include them in the ratings box, if not the general text, so you can include specifics from others and give variety to this section.
 * I can access more reviews, but they're from newspapers that (to my knowledge) didn't use scoring systems. This means that I won't be able to add anything to the ratings box. However, I could add another paragraph to Reception if you think the section is too thin. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that being said, I'd say that we can leave the box as is then. The text of the reception section is in good order- I don't believe a full new paragraph is necessary. If it is something of interest to you, you are welcome to add a couple more perspectives from reviews. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably not necessary, so I'll leave it as it stands. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My suggestion for the aftermath subsection is to moved it to the development section.
 * Aside from the first two sentences, which discuss a post-release patch, the section has nothing to do with FU2's development. To me, it makes sense to leave it at the end of the article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more in terms of that information being a part of the conclusion to a development cycle. However, you may indeed have a point. Tell me, do you think it should remain a subsection, or is there possibly merit to name it as its own section? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's true that it doesn't make much sense as a Reception subsection. I gave it a section of its own. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Overall, great page! There is room for improvement, namely in the name of expansion, but I believe it's closer than what I generally anticipate for FACs. If my suggestions are addressed, I will gladly endorse the promotion of this FAC. In the meantime, I would be most pleased if you would give your input at the FAC I have opened for Dota 2. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 19:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Added comments above. I'll try to drop by the Dota 2 nom in the next day or two. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Anyways, I'd say that with everything you've replied with, you're pretty close to having my complete seal of approval! I have but a couple new replies to yours that may require action, so please look through them, get back to me, then we can go from there! ;)
 * Responded above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Support - JimmyBlackwing has been as thorough and professional as one could hope for, which explains why this article is of Featured Article quality. While I may have personal inclinations that do not agree with his conclusions, I find his reasoning to be sound nonetheless. I endorse this article's FA status. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On a side note, if you are so inclined, "Aftermath" may be better suited with the header of "Legacy". ;) D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.