Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/System Shock 2/archive2


 * 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 not promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 03:54, 24 September 2008.

System Shock 2

 * Nominator(s): Noj r (talk)
 * previous FAC (20:52, 20 April 2008)

I am nominating this article for FA status because a lot of work has happened between now and the last FAC. I had the article peer reviewed for FA quality adjustments and feel they have been met. Also consider how this article appeared before major work was done. A couple of points before reviewing the article. Many people have noticed that the acronyms "OSA" and "OS" are never fully explained. The game does not explain either. So please understand, I have added inline notes where I deemed appropriate to explain this. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Images:
 * Image:Systemshock2box.jpg needs an FUR for both articles in which it is used.
 * Removed image from Von Braun (starship) article. I plan on taking that article to Articles for deletion in the future. -- Noj r (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The in-article caption for Image:Systemshock2 ingame final.jpg could go into more detail about exactly what is shown.
 * Done, hope its better. -- Noj r (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Image:SS2 Concept.jpg needs a better in-article caption. It doesn't jump out at me where the critical commentary related to that image is. It should.
 * Done, I believe it is better now. -- Noj r (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Giggy (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are all fine now. Giggy (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources:
 * Magazine publishers (eg. Next Generation Magazine, PC Gamer, Edge, Computer and Video Games, The Phoenix) need to have their name in italics in refs. Ctrl+F is your friend.
 * Done. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes http://www.thunderboltgames.com/reviews/viewreview.php?rid=724 or its author reliable sources?
 * Thunderbolt (website) is an independent gaming site begun in 2000. Its author has contributed over 100 articles to the site. I maintain its inclusion because it is a review and not a source of information. Please feel free to discuss. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From its article, it says its volunteer contributed. Thus, we need to know what makes this author's opinion noteworthy in the field of video games (eg. I could post some stuff on my website, but would you use my opinion in the article?) Also, it (ref 12) is used once outside the reception section (hence, a source of information). Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didnt see that gameplay ref. Regarding reliability, Thunderbolt itself says here that "Since 2000, our goal has been to provide gamers with a source of information that they can trust and rely on." That tells me that they are concerned about reporting factually accurate material and are professional about their work. I see this as signs of reliability. -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Same for http://www.justadventure.com/reviews/SS2/SS2.shtm
 * Just Adventure is probably the biggest Adventure game site on the web. They check their articles for factual accuracy. Again this was solely being used as a review and not a source of information. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where does it say they check their articles for accuracy? Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought their staff page said something about it. I was probably wrong. They are a reliable site though. They have had interviews with dozens of industry professionals and have plain been writing about adventure games for forever. You didn't have a problem with Just Adventure's reliablity over at the Myst IV review. -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh. I didn't look specifically at sources on that one, but you've got me there. :-) Leaning towards reliable on this one per the Google Scholar citations. Giggy (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it help if you knew Just Adventure was talked about by Gamespot here and had their review featured inside that particular game's flap cover? Just Adventure is featured on other game covers as well, I just cant remember which ones. Maybe I'll email them about it. -- Noj r (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And http://www.actiontrip.com/features/atstop10scariestvideogames.phtml
 * I stumbled across this site when looking for sources. I've never heard of them before, but they appear legit and the source is only being used to show the impact System Shock 2 had on video game horror. It can be removed if it is a problem. -- Noj r (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If there's no evidence of fact checking/industry reputation/etc. then it's probably best to remove it. Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed reference. There are plenty of other sources. -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.gameshadow.com/gamepedia/content/features/feature_2007-04-10a.php?Ten_Best_PC_Villains
 * Gameshadow is a gaming community website and freeware utility with over 1 million members. The source is solely being used to show the popularity SHODAN has among gamers. It can be removed if it is troublesome. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's citing the statement "SHODAN is highly regarded by game critics as one of the most notorious villains in video game history". Thus you'd need to show the author's reputation as a game critic. Since there are three other refs for that statement, though, you could remove it too; up to you. Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed reference. It isn't that important. -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * http://kotaku.com/gaming/irrational/who-were-the-prostitutes-in-system-shock-2-200023.php (what's the status on Kotaku staff?)
 * This site is covered by WikiProject Video games/Sources and is being used to show the exposure the SHTUP mod has had. It can be replaced if necessary. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:VG/S; "A blog network; use of this site and its affiliates should be carefully considered. Often, it is best to demonstrate the reliability of the individual authors sourced." I don't know what we do with Kotaku staff. A backup source would be good if possible (or if you can get some clarification on the status for posts like this one). Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Replaced Kotaku reference with one from Screw Attack. -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/07/ea-does-give-a-sh-t-about-system-shock-3-says-pc-gamer-uk/ (is the author reliable?)
 * Professional blogging site. Author is a managing editor for the blog. Can be replaced if troublesome. -- Noj r (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:VG/S' comment on this one. As he's the managing editor, proving his reliability shouldn't be hard to do, I think. Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I don't really know how to go about proving his reliability. Is it enough that the cited statement describes a rumor and not fact? -- Noj r (talk) 09:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's citing "Rumors of a sequel were further enhanced by an issue of PC Gamer UK saying that EA had assigned the team behind The Godfather in charge of developing System Shock 3". Is it possible to just cite the original PC Gamer? Someone at WikiProject Video games/Magazines/PC Gamer (UK) may have a copy of it, or you could just cite the issue. Giggy (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Resolved. That's a good idea. In the mean time, I have removed the Joystiq statement and added an interesting one reported by CVG. If I can verify the reliability of the Joystiq author or acquire the original PC Gamer UK source, it can be reinserted. I hope your leaning towards support with all the running around you've made me do :P -- Noj r (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note. Yeah, if the prose is good enough when I look at it, I'll be sure to support soon! Giggy (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. Added a request for the PC Gamer UK Reference at WP:VG/Magazines Talk page, here. -- Noj r (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have an original copy of the mag, and there's a (1.5MB) scan of the entire page here. I don't think it would scrape past WP:FU here, so I used imageshack - I'd like to take it down ASAP, so let me know when you've finished with it. The exact author of The Spy is unknown (it's The Spy who writes it...). It's a rumour and gossip column, detailing the various "I heard from a friend who heard from a friend who knows someone who makes the coffee at EA" machinations of the game developing world. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the article Vanderdecken. I have incorporated the joystiq statement back into the article and referenced the PC Gamer article. -- Noj r (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the " Note: " is needed in refs 14 and 16 since they are, by nature, footnotes.
 * Done. -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Same on ref 54 (Rob Fermier).
 * Done -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't need to specific language=English; this is the assumed default.
 * Done -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just say GamePro on ref 56.
 * Done -- Noj r (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And ref 67.
 * Done -- Noj r (talk) 07:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Giggy (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, check out Featured article candidates/Midtown Madness for a recent example on demonstrating the reliability of websites for VG articles. Giggy (talk) 07:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments. The prose needs a copy-edit, but it's not a huge job at all. Here are observations from the lead that show how the writing needs to be polished.
 * I'm going through and scrubbing the article. Please inform about any other issues so the article can improve. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why dilute the high-value links at the start with soldier? I'm unsure that the link to variables (twice, no less) isn't going to confuse rather than clarify. "Gameplay" link? Why? Instead of linking "resolution", why not delink and use "image resolution"?
 * Done. Well, I never considered the value of links in the lead, but then again. "Variables", "gameplay", and "resolution" are linked down below, but I thought these were observations about the lead. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ", which" not ", that". "The player assumes", since "a lone soldier" is singular.
 * I'm sorry, ", which" "not ", that". What are these supposed to mean? I fixed the "player assumes" bit. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The simple answer: A comma should never come before "that". If you want a pause with a comma in those constructs, use "which", which should always follow a comma. Caveat emptor: "never" and "always" are too rigid :). This is a good summary of the "which" versus "that" problem. Budding Journalist 06:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Ah, I do recall hearing something like that. Thanks for the info. -- Noj r (talk) 06:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * em em in "attempts to stem"; why not make it plain: "tries to stem"?
 * Done. Haha, never noticed this awkward bit. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The title has since become a cult classic"—Can't it be "The game"?
 * Done. Yes it can. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Released to commercial success?
 * Done. Changed to "strong sales". -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hate the dots after "Mr.", etc; it's old-fashioned, although not incorrect, strictly speaking.
 * Huh? "Mr." is never mentioned and I do not recall any other abbreviations in the article separated by dots. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * How does the "Horror" NFC image satisfy WP:NFCC? The caption merely describes what is happening in the frame; the image needs to illustrate something far more germaine than that, and be supported by an appropriate caption. Tony   (talk)  12:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The caption also states that horror was a key focus for the title. Without the image, readers cannot understand (a) what Shock 2 looked like in pre-production, (b) the inspiration for some of the game's horrific content. Thus, the image satisfies policy 8. It doesn't help that many other FAs display concept art with much less significance than this image. -- Noj r (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(please don't break the above comments up with inline comments, just respond in a block below so I can better follow the flow of conversation.) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose, prose concerns as well as neutrality:
 * "Somewhere in the course of events, the soldier is rendered unconscious and surgically altered to accommodate a new cybernetic system" - seems out of place at the end of the setting section.
 * "establish her god-head" - can the AI be considered female, or should it be refered to as "it"?
 * The Lead mentions nothing about development.
 * "The original design for the new title would remain close to the final design of System Shock 2, due to the development team's endeavors to create a game similar to System Shock." This combined with the "EA wants SS2" later on makes for clunky and redundant wording.
 * "System Shock 2 received over a dozen awards, of which, eight" - there are lots of bad commas like these throughout the text, audit throughout. Also check for proper italicization throughout.
 * Wikilink the publications in the prose of reception.
 * "System Shock 2 still received some criticism" - POV wording
 * "Other criticisms were pointed out as well. " clunky way to begin a paragraph.
 * This ref doesn't link to the proper page
 * The "greatest villians" refs are supporting the article saying SHODAN is one of the greatest villains in video game history, which I feel is taking the refs beyond what they state- the GameSpot ref is only for computer game villains, for example, and nowhere in any of them do they say "of video gaming history" or the like; better to say SHODAN was called a top video game villain or the like.
 * "special abilities that function similarly to psionic powers in System Shock 2.[76][77]" if you're using the System Shock manual to source this connection, that's original research.
 * Done. I removed that sentence. Tell me if it flows better.
 * SHODAN is consistently referred to as female in the game. See some of the in-game references.
 * The lead does mention development. The game was designed by Ken Levine, was developed by Looking Glass and Irrational. and was published by EA.
 * Done. That sentence is clunky. Cut it down to its bare meaning i.e. Their new game was influenced by System Shock
 * Done. I think its better. Itallicized publishers.
 * Done. Wikilinked the publications.
 * Done. Removed statement.
 * Done. Removed statement.
 * The original "greatest villain" list is here, but when you click any of the links, you are linked somewhere else. Thus, an archived version of the page is present as proof that SHODAN was listed.
 * Done. The Phoenix declared SHODAN #1 in their "Top 20 Greatest Villains In Video Game History" list. But you are right, it is misleading. Reworded to be "one of the most memorable". The references do state this.
 * Done. Yeah, that pretty much was OR. Retrieved reference from the Bioshock article that does quite nicely. -- Noj r (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral until i can review the article further. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 18:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

 Pagra shtak  19:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments This article uses a lot of passive voice and needs some copy edit work. Here's a good example: "All weapons (except mêlée ones) degrade through use and eventually break. As a result, repairing them becomes necessary to ensure they function correctly." Try something like "All non-melee weapons degrade with use and will eventually break if not repaired." Some other examples:
 * Aside from containing a redundancy, the sentence "All critics unanimously described the title as quite frightening." is surely hyperbole. Did literally every critic describe the game in this manner?
 * "Some setbacks were experienced because the Dark Engine was unfinished. This was sometimes advantageous..." Aren't setbacks, by definition, not advantageous?
 * The next sentence explains how, because of the setbacks, they were able to add additional features (hence the advantage gained). Does it make sense? Giggy (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what is intended, just pointing out that an "advantageous setback" is an oxymoron. If it was advantageous, then it wasn't really a setback, was it? Find a better way to describe it.  Pagra shtak  20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Watch out for sentences that don't add any new information: "Many other devices populate the game.", "Other criticisms were pointed out as well."
 * "System Shock 2 received over a dozen awards, of which, eight were 'Game of the Year' awards." Try "...a dozen awards, including eight 'Game of the Year' awards". This needs to be more specific—"Game of the Year" from the Interactive Achievement Awards and "Best use of polygon textures (reader's pick)" are both awards, but one is a lot more impressive.
 * The awards are listed here, so I added a few examples of major publishers that labelled it GOTY . Also made the reword as suggested. Giggy (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, now you've got two includings in your sentence. The article says eight GOTYs, but I count seven on that page (excluding qualifications like RPG GOTY).  Pagra shtak  20:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed the "including" stuff (I'm horrible at proofing my own work), and modified to go by the election criteria you suggested. Giggy (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm trying to verify that SS2 got GOTY from Game Revolution (in part to get a better ref) and am having some trouble. Here's the closest I've got: This index makes me think that the award would have been "PC GOTY" at best, and not overall GOTY. I'd recommend verifying those awards if you're going to mention them in the article. I'm not taking this at face value.  Pagra  shtak  21:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apart from where I've replied inline, I addressed these. Thanks for them! Giggy (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Prose—Not entirely happy with it. Here are random examples that suggest a spruce up by someone else throughout the text is necessary.
 * FTL abbreviation introduced but not subsequently used ...
 * Done. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "In regards to character customization"—"With respect to ..." or "With regard to ...".
 * Done. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Curly quotes not recommended by MoS, but there's controversy about this.
 * I'll keep that in mind. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Logical punctuation required at the end of quotations. See MoS.
 * Done. Looked over the qoutes and adjusted the puncuation. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Just Adventure agreed, saying,"—Second comma better removed.
 * Done. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * stating, “[this] game is brimming with horror.” --> stating that this game "is brimming with horror". Logical p., obstructive comma removed, and interpolation avoided by narrowing the ambit of the quotation.
 * Done. I see how this works. Interesting. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Though it was designed to add tension by forcing the player to consider every shot, many felt this became annoying[45][3][4] and even the developers appear to have misgivings about the system." centered on --> concerned.
 * Done. Reworded and split up the sentence. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Allgame felt the game began "to drain" near the end with the inclusion of objectives requiring constant backtracking,[45] sentiments felt by Thunderbolt, who also criticized the backtracking, describing it as "a nuisance".—"drain" is a groupy term? You could paraphrase it. The sentence is long and unweildy. Tony   (talk)  11:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Reworded and split apart. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

References—Convince me that they're all authoritative. What about the "critical claim" that [10] BioShock is used to support? Looks like a commercially tainted set of opinions. Tony  (talk)  11:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 99% of the references are covered in WikiProject Video games/Sources as reliable, including the metacritic reference citing bioshock's critical acclaim. The only two references that may be disputed are the Just Adventure and Thunderbolt reference. Just Adventure should be listed as a reliable reference though. See my conversation near the top with Giggy about Just Adventure. Thunderbolt is an independent gaming website that factually check their work and edit it professionally. Thunderbolt is only quoted once, but can be removed if necessary. -- Noj r (talk) 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.