Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/System Shock


 * 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 18:43, 15 May 2007.

System Shock
Self-nomination. I rewrote and heavily added to this article, which is currently classified as a good article. Prior to this nomination, the article was subject to a peer review by WikiProject Video games, the suggestions of which I integrated into the article. I find the article to be worthy of featured status, but will endeavor to correct any issues that may be found over the course of this nomination. JimmyBlackwing 00:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support per work done with nominator on Peer Review. I took one last look through, and all I see is maybe wikilink 3D in the lead.--Clyde (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing 00:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"In 1993, id followed up Wolfenstein with Doom, signaling the age of first-person shooters. Though well-made, Doom and its knock-offs were relatively primitive; they were designed on a single plane, involved little actual environmental interaction, and weren't even really 3D. Building on Underworld, Looking Glass responded with its own 'anti-FPS' of sorts, a first-person adventure game called System Shock. Unlike Doom, the player could pick up and throw items, or store them in a massive inventory. Since the game involved real 3D space, the player could look around, climb, duck, jump, and even lean to the side. The flip side of all this control is that the game was confusing as hell to get into. And again, you needed a monster machine to run it. Result: even fewer people really noticed the game." "Van Gogh's sad tale is not unlike that of Looking Glass Studios' System Shock, which is without a doubt one of the most original, playable, and immersive computer games ever created. The trouble is, at the time of its release, no one (myself included) could be bothered to notice. System Shock came and went whilst everyone was busy killing each other in Doom II, and the title slipped off the radars of all but the most ardent gamers. But those lucky few were in for a treat -- they had unexpectedly stumbled upon what was to be the best computer game of 1994. Sure, that's a bit of a bold statement, but read on to find out why System Shock deserves nearly every accolade we can think of, and then some."
 * Support All points seem to have been attended in the peer review. - 凶 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose &mdash;prose looks good based on the lead. However, I noticed a few minor issues in the first section:
 * Some of the references aren't entirely formatted; namely, the magazine articles need authors and other relevant information.
 * Watch out for redundancies and misplaced formality. Generally, it's best to avoid "prior to" and say "before" instead (as Tony says, we use too much Latin as it is).
 * This sentence needs work: "The game begins as the protagonist awakens from his coma, finding that the station has been taken over by the now insane SHODAN, with all robots aboard the station reprogrammed for hostility, and the crew transformed into cyborgs and mutants." It's a snake, and doesn't flow correctly. Try "The game begins as the protagonist awakens from his coma, finding that the station has been taken over by an insane SHODAN; all robots aboard have been reprogrammed for hostility, and the crew have been transformed into cyborgs and mutants" or something along those lines.
 * "The player character is soon contacted by Rebecca Lansing, a TriOptimum counter-terrorism consultant, who claims that Citadel Station's mining laser is being charged for a strike against Earth." "Player character" should be "playable character", and you can probably remove "soon".
 * These are just a few examples. Try to give the prose a double check to remove redundancies and other issues. I recommend checking it against User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a. Normally, I'd do this myself, but I've been trying to take Tony's approach by pointing out examples instead (plus, I've been really pressed for time). That way, the editors learn by doing. &mdash; Deckiller 06:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I corrected the examples you gave, and will locate copyeditors to help me out with the rest of the prose. On the subject of your other point, not all of the references are capable of being entirely formatted; the Next Generation Magazine review does not, in fact, name its author. I'm not sure about the PC Gamer and Computer Gaming World articles, so I'll check them out. JimmyBlackwing 07:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't find the references again, don't worry about it; if you have them, please double check. Articles are often slammed for not filling out references properly. &mdash; Deckiller 07:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have a scan of the Next Generation Magazine article, courtesy of User:Mitaphane. On the scanned page, there is no listing of the author. I'm not an avid magazine reader, so I'm not sure if the author would be listed elsewhere in the issue. I do not currently have access to the other two articles, but I will attempt to find the information if it exists. It's going to take me awhile (possibly over a week), though. In the meantime, I will attend to requesting the assistance of a copyeditor. JimmyBlackwing 08:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment as far as I can tell: "System Shock sold 170,000 copies,[28] being outsold by its contemporaries.[5][2]" is a problem neither ref 2 nor ref 5 talk about sales figures. Side note, starting a clause with 'being' never makes a good sentence. The 3D content is not 'true' It's still a flat screen. Mention 3D modelling or something. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ref 2 states:
 * Ref 5 states:


 * I do not see how these do not work as references for that statement. Both of them discuss sales. And yes, the game featured true 3D environments. As in, "not 2 and 1/2D", like Wolfenstein 3D and Doom had been. JimmyBlackwing 20:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: Ok, it took me even longer than expected, but I have filled out the magazine information. With that done, the only remaining objection is prose-based. I'll put in a request with the League of Copyeditors. JimmyBlackwing 18:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Doesn't seem to have any problems and is well written. Though one magazine reference doesn't have any page numbers. Medvedenko 15:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Oppose —Improved prose. Tony 02:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1a. Random examples such as these suggest that more precise copy-editing is required throughout.
 * "The game received critical praise,[3][4] later being hailed as a major innovator in its genre,[5] and placing on multiple hall of fame lists.[5][6][7]"—Get rid of "later being" --> "and was". It's not the innovator (a human was that) --> "innovation". The grammar of "and placing" is unclear --> "and was placed"? Why is Reference 5 cited twice in one sentence, and heavens, again in the subsequent senetence? Why does "critical praise" appear again in the very next sentence?
 * "Before the game's beginning". No, "Before the beginning of the game".
 * "a six-month long controlled healing coma"—spot the redundant word.
 * "Citadel Station's mining laser is being charged for a strike against Earth"—Does this involve a payment, or do you mean "prepared", or even "charged up"? Tony 01:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I put in a request with the League of Copyeditors on April 27. I can't copyedit the article any further than I already have, so I'm forced to wait. I have attempted to fix the issues you cited, however. JimmyBlackwing 03:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Finding collaborators. Go to the list of FAs. There must be 20 games ones. I looked at the first one (3D thingo), and saw copy-editing by User:BACbKA. That took 90 seconds. You might spend longer identifying a priority list of the most likely to ask. Tony 21:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.