Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flotilla (video game)/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 Graham Colm 109:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Flotilla (video game)

 * Nominator(s):  → Call me  Hahc  21  02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Flotilla is a turn-based strategy space combat video game developed by Brendon Chung's video game studio, Blendo Games. It was released in 26 February 2010 for Microsoft Windows, and in 30 March 2010 on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360. The game employs Microsoft's XNA game platform, and its development was influenced by cats and board games, such as Axis and Allies and Arkham Horror. The game follows the player in an 30-minute adventure through a randomly generated galaxy.  → Call me  Hahc  21  02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Tezero
;Comments from Tezero The article looks great otherwise. Tezero (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize this may have been a contentious issue at GAN (I haven't checked), but why are there only two reviews listed? The table seems like a better place for them than the Reception text, which should probably be expanded a bit.
 * Mainly because I forgot. Updated table and expanded reception section.
 * "Gamers With Jobs" - decapitalize "With".
 * Done
 * "Allen Cook from Gamers With Jobs commented that Flotilla's gameplay setup worked 'as if Homeworld only involved 2 ships and only let you set orders 30 seconds at a time.'" - I've never heard of Homeworld. Looks to be decently well-known among the strategy community, but I'd still prefer the game be introduced somehow. Perhaps "One reviewer compared Flotilla's gameplay setup to that of the 1999 real-time strategy game Homeworld if it "only involved 2 ships and only let you set orders 30 seconds at a time."" would work more nicely.
 * Hmmm. Used your suggestion but with some slight changes.
 * "The challenges are tactical battles the player must fight against a variety of different enemies" - I realize that this is correct grammar, but it might be less awkward to add "in which" after "battles".
 * Done
 * "'tattooed chicken space pirates or crocodiles suffering from space madness.'" - I'd recommend paraphrasing the quote, as it's not clear who it's from and I really don't see anything too necessary about the precise wording.
 * Done
 * "heavier rear and back armor" - is there a difference between the two I'm not aware of?
 * Oops!
 * "has contributed to the development of" - I'd change "has" to "had" just so the article doesn't get out of date if Chung later works on significantly more successful games.
 * Done
 * "after Pandemic Studios was shut down and around 200 staff laid off by Electronic Arts" - this would sound more natural in active voice.
 * Changed it to "after 200 staff were laid out by Electronic Arts along with the closure of Pandemic Studios." Help needed :)
 * "The prototype, a two-dimensional turn-based space action game" - I was under the impression that Flotilla was 2D. If not, please explain otherwise earlier.
 * Nope. Flotilla is 3D. Let me explain that in gameplay.
 * "The game includes a limited length of play time in the solo mode" - you've already said this. Knot it somewhere into the next sentence.
 * Done
 * "The patch introduced a new "hardcore" mode that could be played without time limits." - again, redundant. Just change it to something like "This was the inspiration for Flotilla's hardcore mode", and use that as either a new sentence or a semicolon-ed extension of the previous sentence.
 * Went with "and a new "hardcore" mode was introduced"
 * (image) "each 30 seconds" - change "each" to "every".
 * Done
 * Is GameFAQs a reliable source for release dates? I recall some murmurs about that not long ago. If not, I expect you could find a "Flotilla releases this Thursday"-type articles from IGN or something.
 * Let me check.
 * Is Gaming Daily a reliable source? It seems to have hidden among the bushes at WP:VG/RS. I've heard of it and no ill thoughts spring at me, but it's worth questioning.
 * I think it is. I've never seen problems with it, though I can ask around just in case.
 * Thanks!  → Call me  Hahc  21  18:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'll support the candidacy if you can provide an answer about the sources. I notice you've edited a bit since I made these comments, so I just wanted to remind you. Tezero (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I already removed GameFAQs. I have yet to make my mind about GamingDaily. what do you think about Gaming Daily? is it reliable?  → Call me   Hahc  21  03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I checked GamingDaily's about page from the time that the article was written. They had a general editor, a deputy editor, and three writers. I am unimpressed with what I could find on the credentials of the general editor (link to his blog) and even less impressed with the (apparent lack of) credentials of the person that wrote the review (link to his blog). The review itself is passable, but not great.
 * The issue with removing GamingDaily is that everywhere GamingDaily is used as a source, Gamers with Jobs is also used as a source. Like the GamingDaily review, I found the Gamers with Jobs review passable but not great. However, I found no indication that the person writing the review was a staff writer, and more problematically, found no indication that Gamers with Jobs has editorial policies/oversight.
 * I'd say remove them both, but that would leave a majority of the Gameplay section unsourced. I would say remove Gamers with Jobs, but that would leave the section heavily dependent on the review from GamingDaily. Ultimately, I am going to decline to give a recommendation. These are not sources that I would use if I were writing an article, but I write articles on XBLA games, where better sources are readily available. You would be better served asking for advice from someone that works in indie game articles, and has a better feel for what level of quality and formal editorial control is acceptable in that area.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, I think you'd want . Tezero (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Addressed all, I think (source replacement on the way). More comments? :)  → Call me  Hahc  21  01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nah. Support: I trust that you'll find acceptable sources and, well, if you don't, someone else will oppose on source quality. My other concerns are all addressed. Tezero (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Still need to do a full review, but here's a short source review, unindented: -- Pres N  19:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Source review by PresN
 * To answer the above question: GameFAQs is not a reliable source for anything, including release dates- they're user-generated. Unfortunately, since they share databases, that makes GameSpot game landing pages non-reliable sources as well. That said, you don't usually need sources for dates in the infobox; they're not likely to be challenged. Just for future reference; what you have now is fine.
 * If you stick |deadurl=no in your citations, it makes the main link the quick-loading live url, not the archive
 * Gaming Daily - I'm... going to go with non-RS on this. There's no indication that they pay the writers, do any editorial control, exist primarily on their own writing rather than whatever they can get people to submit for free, even have a backing company, etc. Their "write for us" page is dead, but the archive gives no indication either. If you could find any use of their stuff as a source by RS's, or confirmation that they did fact-checking/editing on articles, or prove Paul Millen's personal notability, then you'd be good.
 * Gamers with Jobs - I feel a bit better about this one, but it's still on the wrong side of the line- a nicer layout and a larger userbase is the only difference. Same deal- find usage of their stuff by RS's, contact them and get them to say that they don't just post whatever, prove Allen Cooks' personal notability, etc.
 * SquareGo - As an interview, I'm fine with it.
 * FidGit - Link Tom Chick and Sci Fi Channel (United States), please
 * The rest seems fine.
 * Source you might want to use: large bit-tech review (professional, owned by Dennis Publishing)
 * I have addressed all. I will read the Bit-Tech one this week and add it.  → Call me  Hahc  21  20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This article has three images. Two images are freely licensed, and one is non-free.
 * Media review by Sven Manguard
 * File:Flotilla Coverart.png is a non-free image. It meets the NFCC and has an appropriate FUR
 * File:Flotilla - combat (Blendo Games).jpg is freely licensed. It is sourced to a Flickr account, and there is no evidence of Flickrwashing. There is no evidence that the account that released the images is Blendo's official Flickr (and no link to it in the media section of the official website), but no evidence to the contrary either.
 * File:Brendon Chung at GDC 2012.jpg is freely licensed. It is sourced to a Flickr account, and there is no evidence of Flickrwashing.

I have written to the studio to confirm that the Flirkr account is legitimate, and also to ask for the first image to be released under a free license. As it stands, this article passes media review regardless. This is not a support vote for the article; I don't do those.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  05:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * All these images were given by Brendong Chung after contacted him during the FAC candidacy of Gravity Bone. Maybe Masem can help confirm that. Cheers.  → Call me   Hahc  21  23:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the account is legit. I knew Brendan via the Shacknews website and helped guide him how to up these to flickr and license them for our use. If needed, I can submit to ORTS the message chain for that. --M ASEM (t) 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Though I admit I'm jealous.  → Call me  Hahc  21  00:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The email is already sent. I was unaware of the connection. An OTRS record verifying that the Flickr account is official would be a good thing to have, if it's not too much trouble.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * - My contact with Blendo Games has been a success. We now have freely licensed cover art for six of his games (including this one), and there is an OTRS ticket on file confirming the authenticity of the Flickr account.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  18:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Hahc21. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Review from czar
;Review from czar


 * In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar ♔  15:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please respond below the review and I'll hat my bullets after your reply. Some questions are rhetorical and I'm not expecting answers here but clarification in the article.


 * copyedit done, in lieu of small suggestions. Some things: "Raindrop" goes in quotes per its own article, direct quotes need immediate citations, I removed some ambiguities, WP uses logical quotation with punctuation almost always outside the quotations
 * Could use more gameplay summary in lede. More can be added to show why the game was notable.
 * The purpose of the Gamers with Jobs quote is ambiguous—is he describing Homeworld or Flotilla and why is the quote preferable to just paraphrasing his point?
 * Coop mode uses a single controller? Clarify
 * Done
 * The relevance of the id Tech 2 experience isn't clear
 * Removed
 * There is a bit of excessive quoting in the Gameplay section. If it can be made more concise through paraphrase, that's the way to go
 * In the gameplay section? I think you meant Reception no?
 * Steam redlink
 * Already fixed.
 * The Reception section is a little weak. Why is every reviewer listed in order with its numerical score instead of leading a discussion of the game's major sticking points and points of praise? More can be said by way of paraphrase and apart from the "X gave it # of # and added, QUOTE" format. If multiple reviewers referred to its charm, that can be grouped together in a single sentence.
 * "but criticized the multiplayer mode": if it's worth mentioning this criticism in the first place, it would be worth mentioning what about it he criticized; matchmaking criticism could be cleaned up too
 * What did Mike Rose say about the game?
 * Nothing remarkable. I thought about adding something but Rose only did a brief summary of the game etc.
 * That Miller quote had two typos [his, not yours] in it... is Gaming Daily reliable? (WP:VG/RS)
 * Removed, replacing now.
 * Thank you for using list-defined refs
 * I love them as much as I love order. It keeps the sections readable.
 * Release information is not cited in the article (stuff in the lede should be cited within the article)
 * According to PresN, this is not needed anywhere, but I already cited it in the infobox (maybe you didn't see it)
 * Is there no mention of how this game relates to Chung's later works? No influence or confluence of style?
 * Not at all, sadly. Such type of analysis only exists to his Citizen Abel series of games (Gravity Bone, Thirty Flights of Loving, Quadrilateral...)
 * "in 29 March 2014" constructions should change "in" to "on"
 * I always get confused with those. Non-native speaker problems.

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar ♔  18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Addressed some.  → Call me  Hahc  21  01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I reworked the Reception section. However, since this is a not-so-famous indie game, there not much that can be done to expand it more. Do you have any more comments? I'd like to know if I have addressed them all. Cheers.  → Call me  Hahc  21  19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Unaddressed: there is no gameplay summary in lede, more can be done to show why the game is notable in lede, comment about multiplayer mode criticism. I still think more of the direct quotations can be struck and paraphrased.
 * I don't know where PresN said the release date doesn't need to be mentioned in the article, and I wouldn't say it's a rule, but this would mean that there is no coverage of the game's actual release in the article (other than professional reviews, not the release itself). In a FA? Why? There is also nothing on porting the game, or the non-simultaneous release? (Also the infobox dates appear to be out of order.)
 * Because this is an indie game. Indie games like this usually receive coverage in the form of reviews and interviews. Only major, non-indie games receive coverage about release dates because publishers are very buzzy about that. This isn't like that. When an indie game is finished, it's released and that's it. Then, reviewers become aware amd write reviews.  → Call me  Hahc  21  19:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Minor concern, but I don't know why Space Piñata is mentioned in the lede. It's fine with just the description
 * (Another minor concern: I don't know what's up with the "no include" tags on this review page. The FAC page specifically asked not to use semicolons.)
 * The noinclude thing is to avoid the headers to appear on the main FAC page. I'm fine if the semicolons are replaced with boldings.
 * I don't understand why dmy became mdy. I see a strong nat ties argument in the edit summaries, but I think WP:RETAIN takes precedent over the extremely unimportant (not mentioned in the article once) fact that Blendo is based in the US.
 * Clarifications can still be made to the Gameplay—what is randomly generated (at least link it?) Is there one "the player" or multiple "players" in the Gameplay explanation. I still don't really know how the Gameplay works. Is there a 30-second time limit to enter commands that are then executed in unison? Is the window for movement only open every 30 seconds (briefly) and the movement happens simultaneously? We need much more info about how the controls and core mechanics work.
 * The prose has become chunkier in the flurry of edits since I last touched the article. Could use a copyedit. Some examples: mixed punctuation inside/outside quotation marks (mentioned in original copyedit notes above), "Before Flotilla, Chung worked on a prototype, a two-dimensional turn-based space action game called Space Piñata, whose gameplay and structure were similar to those of the final version of Flotilla." → "similar in gameplay and structure to the final Flotilla release" and I'd also turn the comma parenthetical to an em dash parenthetical for readability, "Flotilla has a cooperative mode that can be played with an additional Xbox 360 controller, as well as a split-screen multiplayer mode." → "has cooperative and split-screen multiplayer modes that can", etc. I wouldn't say the prose is at 1a professional brilliance yet. I already gave it a look earlier (I wanted to just come back to support) but I'm out of time, so it's someone else's turn to copyedit.
 * I have to oppose on these quality concern grounds, though I think they're surmountable. I don't want the opp to put the nom in danger, so please ping me to do the copyedit on a weekend if you absolutely can't get anyone else to do it. czar ♔  14:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look to me like much in the way of copyediting has occurred since this comment, so has Czar been invited to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked, but I guess she's busy. I'd appreciate if somebody copyedits it :)  → Call me  Hahc  21  20:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Drive-by review from Chris857
 * "It also incorporates several pieces of classical music, such as Chopin's "Raindrop" prelude, in its score." - in my opinion, this would read more naturally as "It also incorporates several pieces of classical music in its score, such as Chopin's "Raindrop" prelude." Chris857 (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Chris857: Tweaked. Cheers!  → Call me  Hahc  21  20:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Review from JimmyBlackwing
;Review from JimmyBlackwing

Some stuff I noticed, written as I read through the article from top to bottom.
 * Is it necessary to include all of its exact release dates in the lead? The infobox has those handled. Perhaps change it to the slicker, easier-to-read, "It was released in March 2010 on Steam for Microsoft Windows and on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360."
 * Done.
 * Coming into this article as someone who has never even heard of this game, the line in the lead about its development being "influenced by cats" is incoherent to me. What about cats was used as an influence? Their fur? Their sleeping habits? Going to need some clarification.
 * This is not clear in the source either. However, I have emailed Brendon to know if he can expand a bit on this.
 * While it would be interesting to find out what he meant, we'll need a reliable, verifiable reference if that information is to be used in an article. An email does not qualify as a reliable, verifiable reference. I think it would be best to remove the cats mention, because it's too confusing and meaningless as it stands.
 * Actually, I disagree. We can treat his email as a primary source (it is a detail about how the game was developed, so all info about it comes from a primary source, even if published by a third-p source) and add the information to the article. Since the cats thing was used for DYK, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove it from the article.
 * Also, some redundancy in the first paragraph: the last two sentences begin with "The game", and the second-to-last sentence uses both "development" and "developed". Maybe change "development" to "design".
 * Done.
 * The second paragraph states that Chung developed Flotilla immediately after Pandemic shut down. The use of the word "developed" makes it sound like the game was made in a day. Perhaps "Chung began developing Flotilla" would be better.
 * Done.
 * What was Space Pinata a prototype of, and who made it? It's not clear.
 * It was just a game prototype, developed by Chung. Clarified.
 * Also, as a general rule, formulations such as ", and used" or ", and was included" should be ", and it used" or ", and it was included"—when discussing an object, that is.
 * Will have in mind, thanks!
 * What is a non-playable opponent? Is this is same thing as an artificially intelligent opponent? If that's the case, then I recommend the latter wording, as it's clearer.
 * Changed to The game lets the player and opponents (controlled by the game's artificial intelligence) issue orders...
 * There are a lot of unnecessary words here: "usually given no more than a few ships to control". Try, "usually controls less than X ships", where X is replaced by the relevant number. To remain grammatically correct after this change, the second half of the sentence will have to begin ", which may be".
 * The problem is that your suggestion is not accurate. The player is given no more than a few ships to control at the beginning of the game, but they can eventually control more ships later. However, I did not specify this either. I tweaked the sentence now. Take a look.
 * Thanks for the clarification. I tweak the wording of the new version a bit, but, aside from that, it looks good.
 * "fixed duration" can be changed to "duration".
 * Done.
 * Instead of "a new randomly generated galaxy is created and filled with planets and enemy ships", try "a new galaxy is randomly generated and filled with planets and enemy ships".
 * Done.
 * I don't understand the sentence regarding tutorials. Does the player have to play a tutorial each time he or she begins an adventure? Also, what does the tutorial teach?
 * Tweaked. It teaches the basic gameplay stuff.
 * If "all planets offer a possible quest", then there is a single quest offered by all planets collectively. Try, "Each planet offers a possible quest".
 * Fixed.
 * You write that Flotilla's single-player mode is a "single adventure" that must be replayed; yet, lower down, you write that "a new chapter is added to the player's character's story" upon victory. I don't understand how these two things fit together.
 * Victory there refers to each challenge within a single playthrough. These are then reset when a new adventure is started. However, the game keeps track of the player's score in each playthrough at the scoreboard.
 * I see it now. I'll take the blame for this misunderstanding.
 * You need to merge the challenge-related information at the end of the second paragraph with that at the beginning of the third. As it stands, you explain what a challenge is after you've told us everything else about it. I recommend that you introduce a line break after "being able to freely explore the galaxy", and that you begin the third paragraph like so:
 * Each planet offers a possible quest or challenge to the player. Challenges are tactical battles in which the player must defeat a certain number of enemy ships. However, ships can only be harmed from behind or below; attacks from any other position will be countered by the ships' shields. Upon succeeding, a new chapter is added to the player's character's story, and the player is awarded with ship upgrades.
 * Tweaked.
 * I don't understand this: "the player may not receive the same upgrade by playing the same encounter in two different adventures." Again, you wrote that the single-player mode is a "single adventure". I'm not sure how a single adventure can be "two different adventures", or how the same encounter can play out twice in a randomly generated galaxy.
 * I think that my removing of the word "single" solved this point. it is not a "single adventure," and I still don't know what I meant by it. Anyways, it's gone :)
 * How can Chung develop a game "under his video game studio"? Was he developing it in his basement? I'm not sure what this means.
 * Woah forgot to tweak wording on Dev. Done.
 * "Chung started coding Flotilla in 2009 after 200 staff were laid off by Electronic Arts as Pandemic Studios was closed." -- "He started coding Flotilla in 2009, after Electronic Arts closed Pandemic Studios and laid off 200 members of that company's staff."
 * Went with Crisco's suggestion. I don't see why mentioning that 200 staff was laid is important for this game.
 * "a set of tools focused on video game development created by Microsoft." -- "a set of game development tools created by Microsoft."
 * Done.
 * Even in the Development section, the line about cats makes no sense. Definitely need to rework that with more explanation.
 * Let's see what Chung says about it!
 * Was Space Pinata the game that he began developing after Pandemic closed, or was he developing it as a side project while working at Pandemic? As it stands, it's unclear.
 * We don't know when he developed Space Piñata. We only know that it happened before Flotilla.
 * "acknowledged that the games was" should be "acknowledged that the game was".
 * Good catch.
 * "elaborated that althought" should be "elaborated that although".
 * Good catch x2
 * "but concluded that it was however a "sadly disposable" experience" -- the "however" is unnecessary.
 * Already done (by Crisco I suppose)
 * "Joe Martin from Bit-Tech named Flotilla a " hilarious and brazenly original" game." -- Flotilla is not italicized here, and there's a space separating the quotation mark from "hilarious".
 * Oops!
 * "though concluded" -- "though he concluded"
 * Done.
 * Thanks for the comments!  → Call me  Hahc  21  04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Technical notes
 * Do you have issue numbers for the Edge, PC Zone, PC Gamer US and PC Gamer UK reviews? Also, I'm fairly certain that the titles of those articles were not all "Flotilla review"--and that three out of four of those magazines list reviewer names.
 * Let me use my magical-and-resourceful skill to find these. I was not able to do it at first but I admit I was lazy.
 * JimmyBlackwing: Got the PC Gamer US one. However, the UK one, as well as the PC Zone and Edge ones are really though. Edge is issue 214, but I have been unable to get the name of the reviewer. I asked Future Publishing about it (Edge and UK). PC Zone, I think it is issue number 222. The last issue (225) was released in September, so the May one should be 222. I originally took these reviews from Metacritic, though.
 * Edge reviews have always been anonymous. I added the PCGUK issue number--and I think you should add the PC Zone number you found. I'll let the rest slide, I suppose.
 * Flotilla should be italicized in each reference.
 * Done.
 * If you provide an archive for a URL that is still online, remember to include "deadurl=no" in the citation template. The SquareGo and Kotaku links are still live, and others might be as well.
 * I think this was pointed out to me, can't remember when. I'll do it soon.
 * The cover needs alt text.
 * The alt text parameter has been deprecated from the template. I can't add it :(
 * I wasn't aware of this. Oh well.

Aside from that, it looks fairly solid. I don't know enough about the game to judge the article's completeness, but I've helped with enough indie game articles to know that the average number of available sources is low. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  → Call me  Hahc  21  04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good. I ran through the article with a little follow-up copyediting, and the prose seems solid enough now. Once you get the last of the technical stuff sorted out, I'll be willing to support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The deadurl business still needs to be taken care of. Also, I made a comment about the cats line above that I think you might have missed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Took care of the deadurl thing. The one about cats, I commented above.  → Call me  Hahc  21  21:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, then. Good work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Crisco comments
;Crisco comments


 * Since this is an American game, shouldn't we be using Month-Day-Year?
 * Oh well, I use this date format on every article I write. it is consistent with the format used in my country and language. I admit that I hate the MM-DD-YYYY formats (I mean 12-1-2011, for example). I wouldn't mind using the expanded one though.
 * I meant the expanded one. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I never use it mostly because I dislike the additional comma. Though I wouldn't mind if it's changed.  → Call me  Hahc  21  04:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that the box art of Chung's other games has also been released under a CC license (in case you missed that)
 * Still can't believe it.
 * 29 March 2010 on Steam for Microsoft Windows, and on 25 March 2010 on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360. - wouldn't it be best to go in chronological order?
 * Chopped the days off the lead, so this is a bit moot.
 * by cats and board games such as Axis and Allies and Arkham Horror. - I feel like this can be rephrased, like using "as well as" rather than "and" in front of board games.
 * Done.
 * single-player mode is framed as a single adventure - any way to avoid repeating "single"?
 * Removed the "single" from "single adventure". It was nonsense and inaccurate!
 * Full Spectrum Warrior and Lord of the Rings: Conquest. - years?
 * Added.
 * Chung started coding Flotilla in 2009 after 200 staff were laid off by Electronic Arts as Pandemic Studios was closed. - why not just "after Electronic Arts closed Pandemic Studios"
 * Done.
 * How did cats influence this????
 * Good question. Asked Chung to see if he can clarify a bit more :)
 * Charge Shot - what makes this review worth noting?
 * I mostly use the reference for gameplay details, so I saw no issue by adding it to the Reception section too.
 * Did Chung include a manual or little bits of information like in Thirty Flights of Loving? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. At least the version I own of the game does not have one.  → Call me  Hahc  21  04:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)I asked him about this too.


 * Looks like we're just waiting on the cats. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - Cat issue is being dealt with appropriately, so I have nothing barring me from support (so long as that email is replaced by a published source). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments by DWB
;Comments by DWB


 * Some of the wording seems awkward, this seems to be partly because there is too little content available to dedicate much space to a particular area so you get one sentence leading into another on a completely different topic. I'm not sure that part can be fixed.
 * Neither do I, sadly.
 * I think replacing the Metacritic mention in the lede with a brief summary of the positives and negatives highlighted by critics would be of more benefit than an arbitrary score.
 * I'll see what I can do.
 * I think the influences need explaining, especially the cat thing.
 * Done, thanks to Brendon.
 * What is "hardcore" mode, what limitation was removed? The time limit?
 * Yes. The Development section also explained what was it, but I was told to remove it since it was already explained in the Gameplay.
 * Like the other Chung games, there seems to be a struggle to beef up the critical reception section. Is it possible to find reviews outside of Metacritic to expand on things or give alternate opinions?
 * Did my best, came up with nothing.
 * All the images are not Non-Fair Use, so no issue there. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Update : Brendon answered my email explaining the cats thing, and thank god he did. It is now way more clear what he meant by it. So I assume that the cats point is now solved. I did my best to add a proper citation, since this is the first time I do something like that. Oh, he also said that there's not developer commentary for Flotilla. Now, about that copyedit..., would you pelase give me a hand? :)  → Call me  Hahc  21  19:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Are we allowed to cite emails? Even to the OTRS? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea.  → Call me  Hahc  21  02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that, since we are interviewing, this would fall afoul of WP:OR. It would be best for Brendon to make a blog post, then cite that per WP:SPS. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As a video game journalist myself, I could just write a short story about Flotilla and include the commentary he gave me on that email. Though I am afraid that it might be considered as to be promoting myself. However, I just can't ask him to make a blog post, I'd prefer if Sven does it :)  → Call me  Hahc  21  04:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Assuming the publication is an RS, this discussion suggests that it is okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * @Crisco 1492: It would be published at Novo Adagio.  → Call me  Hahc  21  06:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm... we don't have an article on the site, nor does it seem to be cited here much. I'll ping WikiProject Video games. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the article would just be making publicly available facts from the developer that are backed by an email to OTRS, I'm fine with using it as a source regardless of the inherent reliability of the site as a whole. In this case, I think we'd say that the site is situationally an RS, depending on the author, so the fact we have an uncitable basis for the article from the devs makes it fine. -- Pres N  14:02, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine with me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As with me. While I personally think Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources are a little too strict, this seems to demonstrate reliability per what official policy is aiming for. Tezero (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will do it that way then. It will take me a bit though. It's not as simple as just clicking "post". Novo has an oversight team that verifies each story for quality (etc), and I also have to write a story-class piece that includes what Brendon said about animals. I hope to have it ready for monday.  → Call me  Hahc  21  05:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, not a whole lot of rush. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Crisco 1492: Done :)  → Call me  Hahc  21  18:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I've supported above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments -- Since Czar hasn't returned to copyedit, and no-one else seems to have taken on the task, I'm recusing myself as delegate/coordinator to go through it myself. Not being much of a video gamer in general, and never having heard of this one, I can only trust that my efforts to make the prose a little clearer haven't altered the intended meaning. One outstanding point from the lead: "its development was influenced by animals" really cries out for some clarification at this point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from Nortonius
;Comments from Nortonius I note comments above about awkward text: I wonder if some of the following might help.

Lead


 * "The game follows the player in an adventure through a randomly generated galaxy." In my world the game doesn't follow the player: I think "The game takes the player on an adventure ..." would be better.
 * Done.


 * "mixed to positive reviews": if reviews are "mixed", can't they logically include positive ones? If so, then "to positive" is redundant; and, looking at the Reception section, I think just "mixed reviews" would be better here, and wouldn't detract from the game's perceived reception given the lead's (present) final sentence.
 * True. Done.

Gameplay


 * I find this section rather confused and confusing, mainly in the way information is ordered. For example, I think the passage "At the beginning of the game, the player is usually given two ships to control, but more become available as the game continues. Ships may be rotated arbitrarily in any direction." should follow the first sentence in the first paragraph, instead of beginning the second paragraph. Follow me?(!) The rest of the second paragraph is about single-player, whereas I suspect those two sentences apply to the main game (and maybe the single-player too)...? Also:
 * Does the third paragraph, beginning "Each planet offers ...", describe the main game, single-player, or both? If the main game or both, it should be the second paragraph, not the third.
 * "... filled with planets and enemy ships" would fit better and be more useful at the end of the first sentence in the first paragraph instead of where it is now.
 * "... which are carried in a simultaneous and real-time fashion over a period of 30 seconds": something is missing here, and 30 seconds is a "period", so that's redundant. The word "performed" is used in the next sentence: I'd use it here too, saying simply "... which are performed simultaneously and in real time over 30 seconds"; I would also change the next sentence to say "performed over 30 seconds."
 * "Each planet offers a possible quest or challenge to the player": this is the only use in this article of the word "quest". Is it used in the game, or does the game use "challenge"? If only one is used in the game I would use that, but not both; if both are used interchangeably in the game, I'd add commas so it says "quest, or challenge, to the player"; if both are in the game and mean different things, something is missing from the article.
 * About the word "possible", I take it that a player can choose which planet to approach: if so, "possible" is redundant; maybe you mean "different".

These suggestions are meant to be helpful, not harsh: I'll have another look and include the rest of the article when you've responded to them, if you like. Nortonius (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comments from V
Certainly significant room for improvements.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no sales figures.
 * There aren't any.
 * "Mike Rose's book 250 Indie Games You Must Play." - is this somehow notable, important or influential it needs to be in the lead?
 * I think it's important.
 * Cover image is missing caption.
 * Captions are discouraged for video game box arts.
 * Brendon Chung image caption too short.
 * Any suggestions? It reads well for me.
 * If it was only released on Steam and XBL, why isn't it in the infobox?
 * Because they are distribution platforms, and the infobox field is not meant for those.
 * No mention of it being part of a Humble Bundle plenty of sources available
 * I think that that's not relevant to the article.
 * Looking at the manual, soundsnap.com provided the audio, isn't this relevant?
 * There are other award mentions missing
 * Some of the infobox fields are no longer used and should be removed.
 * Addressed some of your comments.  → Call me  Hahc  21  23:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake
Actually, I can't see anything wrong with the article. So I will give this article a Support. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Graham Colm (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.