Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/System Shock 2/archive4


 * 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 GrahamColm 18:13, 20 September 2012.

System Shock 2

 * Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ  21™  18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because after three nominations from 2009 and several improvements i have made to it (the original contributor os long gone since March 2011), i consider that it is now up to standard. I have improved a bit the prose and rewrote all the references, as well as other minor details on the article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ  21™  18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, i would like to add as co-nominator. He did an amazing job on the article and he's the one who nominated at FAC the last three times. Sadly, he's out of Wikipedia (for what i saw) since March 2011. —  ΛΧΣ  21™  22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments: Supported below Alright, I've started my review. I rewrote a couple sentences in the lead, hope you don't mind. I haven't gotten beyond the lead yet, but here are a few thoughts:
 * "In 2007, Irrational—then 2K Boston/2K Australia—released a self-proclaimed 'spiritual successor' to the System Shock series" The name change may be too much detail for the lead.
 * Agree. Removed.


 * "Many critics later determined that the game was highly influential, particularly on first person shooters, and far ahead of its time" I'm a bit unclear about what "far ahead of its time" means here.
 * It was considered ahead of its time in comparation with the rest of the videogames released by that year. It means that System Shock 2 was incredibly innovative in terms of graphics, genre bending and gameplay, as well as story and sound design.


 * "Like its predecessor, gameplay in System Shock 2 is an amalgamation of the role-playing game (RPG) and first person shooter (FPS) genres." You might want to be a bit more explicit about which aspects of the gameplay are from RPG and FPS.
 * Mmm well. I'd be hard to explain, although i consider it quite obvious. Well, i may add that "System Shock 2 achieved this gameplay design by rendering the experience as a standard first-person shooter but seamlessly adding a character customization and development system, which are considered as signature role-play elements."
 * I added this: "The developers achieved this gameplay design by rendering the experience as a standard first-person shooter but seamlessly adding a character customization and development system, which are considered as signature role-play elements."
 * Also, as the game contains notable horror gameplay elements, i'm not sure if this will be worthy to add on the gameplay section: "Additionally, it contains several horror elements incorporated,[2] which were notable enough to gain comparisons with more horror-oriented games such as Silent Hill and Resident Evil.[3]"


 * I'd suggest breaking the first paragraph of "gameplay" in two, perhaps after the first citation.
 * Done.


 * "An in-game currency, called "nanites", may be spent on items at vending machines. This includes ammunition supplies and health packs." What does the "This" in the second sentence refer to?
 * It refers to the items, reworded.


 * "O/S units allow special one-time character upgrades to be made (e.g. permanent health enhancement)." What is a an "O/S units"?
 * Working... I gues it means operating system. I haven't played the game in a while. Will play it to remember.


 * "When new objects are encountered in the game, especially enemies, their organs can be collected. Combined with chemicals found in storage rooms, the player can research the enemies and improve their damage against them." What is combined with chemicals here, the player or the enemies?
 * Fixed.


 * The last paragraph of the section suffers from short sentences, I'd suggest trying to combine or enlarge some of the shorter ones.
 * Will do.


 * Ok, that's all for now, I'll try to review more tomorrow or Tuesday. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A few more comments, sorry if they're jumbled. The biggest thing seems to be some awkward organization that could be rearranged a bit, and some copyediting for flow and conciseness is needed.
 * "The soldier awakens in a cryo-tube on the medical deck of the Von Braun with amnesia due to a computer malfunction." I'm confused here, he has amnesia because a computer malfunctioned? Or did he wake up because a computer malfunction? Or both?
 * Is this better: "Due to a computer malfunction, the soldier awakens in a cryo-tube on the medical deck of the Von Braun with amnesia." It awakes due to the computer malfunction.
 * Rewrote: "Due to a computer malfunction, the soldier awakens with amnesia in a cryo-tube on the medical deck of the Von Braun."


 * " The grove crash-landed on Tau Ceti V." Should this be hyphenated?
 * Don't know. It means that the grove landed while crashing on Tau Ceti V.


 * "A rescue team is sent to the planet surface where they discover strange eggs;[16] these eggs infect the rescue team and integrate them into an alien communion known as the Many. The infestation eventually overtakes both ships." You switch between infect and infest here, was that intentional?
 * No it wasnt. Fixed.


 * "He is then confronted by SHODAN, a malevolent artificial intelligence that devastated Citadel Station, a fictional space station, in the previous game. It is revealed she has been posing as Polito to gain the soldier's trust." So SHODAN is a female artificial intelligence? You might want to state that.
 * Done, added "female" before "malevolent".


 * "SHODAN congratulates him and tells of her intentions to merge real space and cyberspace by subverting the reality-altering mechanics of the Von Braun's faster-than-light drive." Could this sentence be simplified at all? It is a bit complicated.
 * Let me see what i can do. It may be complicated, yes.
 * I have fixed it.


 * "Many critics found the weapon degradation system to be irritating.[3][6][38][47] Members of the development team have also expressed misgivings about the system.[25][48]" You could probably combine these two sentences, although I'm not sure you need 6 refs.
 * Fixed.


 * "The RPG system was another point of contention." This is a good example of another short sentence that could be expanded or combined.
 * Combined.


 * At one point in the article spiritual successor is in quotes and at another it isn't. This should be standardized.
 * Fixed.


 * I'd suggest splitting the last paragraph in two. Also, some of the first paragraph of Legacy seems like it might fit better in Reception.
 * I moved the first paragraph of Legacy (well, some of it) into the Reception section.


 * Ok, those are my comments from my first skim through, I think this has a shot at passing, but needs some cleaning up first. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I haven't re-read the whole article, but a few more small comments:
 * "Despite critical acclaim, the title did not sell well.[47" doesn't seem to flow well with the surrounding text.
 * Actually i'm thinking on removing it. Saying that "it did not sell well" without adding some numbers is useless, IMO.


 * "In 2007, 2K Boston/2K Australia—previously (and again, as of January 2009[64]) known as Irrational Games—released a spiritual successor" I think there might be too much detail here.
 * Me too.


 * "sought to create a game with similar elements. " I'd suggest just "sought to create a similar game"
 * Done.


 * "The team agreed; Electronic Arts became the publisher" who is "the team" here?
 * Changed to "the development team agreed".


 * "was based on Traveller's methodology" Some more explanation of what "traveller" is would be helpful here.
 * Well, it refers to the metodology used in that game, although im foreign about it. Let me see what i can do, but until that, i'll keep it as it is :)


 * "vulnerability was created by focusing on a fragile character, instead of making the player strong." This is a bit redundant here.
 * Removed all after the comma.


 * " tension emerged regarding job assignments. Some developers left the project altogether." Are these two things related?
 * Yes, i merged them.


 * " stating "...inexperience" No need for an ellipsis at the beginning of a quote like this.
 * o.0 Missed it. Fixed.


 * Ok, this is moving in the right direction, keep polishing and you'll be there soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay :). Awaiting more comments from you :)


 * Ok, here's the rest of my comments, I'm close to supporting now:
 * "The game begins with the player choosing a career" I believe this is a fused participle.
 * I don't know what excatly that means :( May I write "At the beginning of the game, the player chooses a career"? I will put it that way.


 * "The player can upgrade his skills by using "cyber-modules" given as rewards for completing objectives such as searching the ship, and then spend the cyber-modules at devices " Some repetition of "cyber-modules" here.
 * Rewrote as this: "and then sped them at devices..." Is it good enough?


 * ""Quantum Bio-Reconstruction Machines" can be activated and reconstitute the player for 10 nanites if they die in the same area." The same area as what?
 * Rewrote as "if they die inside the area in which the machine is."


 * "After restarting the ship's engine core and purging an elevator shaft" Purging an elevator? What does that mean?
 * This is too minor. I will remove it to avoid confusion.


 * "OSA agents effectively have a separate weapons tree available to them. Psionic powers can be learned, such as invisibility, fireballs and teleportation.[8]" These two sentences don't really seem to flow well.
 * "Efforts to regain control of XERXES, the main computer on the Von Braun, fail. SHODAN informs the soldier that destroying the Von Braun is their only option," Some repetition of "Von Braun" here.
 * There's some repetition of "later" in the "Release" section
 * Are you sure? I scanned the reception section and it has no such word. It may have been fixed already :)


 * "System Shock 2 received over a dozen awards, including seven "Game of the Year" awards" Some repetition of "awards"
 * Fixedd.


 * "an abandoned underwater utopian community gone awry through the genetic modification of its populace" Is there a better phrase than "gone awry" that you could use here?
 * Replaced with "destroyed".


 * "specifically in reference to System Shock 2's release date, where player decisions will have a more permanent and profound impact on gameplay in the same manner as System Shock 2" Repetition of the game's name here.
 * Fixed.


 * I added one citation tag to the article.
 * Fixed. Someone added the citation but it already wa son the article. I fixed that too.


 * "the character customization system was based on Traveller's methodology." What is "Traveller"? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is explained later. On the reference, the developer says: "Shock 2's character generation system is accomplished through a methodology similar the paper game Traveller where the character chooses from 3 branchs of the military". The text on the article says: "the character customization system was based on Traveller methodology and was implemented in the fictional military branches". Should I expand it a bit? — ΛΧΣ  21™  02:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You might just want to add something like "the character customization system was based on the methodology of Traveller, a 19XX role playing game" or something. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support Alright, I think the prose has been polished enough to meet FA standards. I don't know much about video game reliable sources and so on, so I can't comment on that. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - article looks good enough to pass for FA. Nice work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support :) — ΛΧΣ  21™  06:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd love to give this a proper review, but I'm busy most of this week. If you haven't gotten enough comments by the weekend, berate me on my talk :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Get some alt text for the box art. That it depicts SHODAN is pretty damn important. - hahnch e n 22:56, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with you. Will do. — ΛΧΣ  21™  02:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. — ΛΧΣ  21™  15:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment on sources - Who are Gaming-Age? And why is their opinion more important than sources you've omitted?  Same with Allgame, their voice is not remotely influential in the world of video games, particularly in 1999.  The reception section seems to have a heavy web-slant, when I would have expected a print one.  Who authored the CVG review?  CVG usually carry their byline at the end of the article, any why are they reviewing it in their August 2001 issue?  If that reference is correct, then it sounds like it was probably a throwaway review for the budget rerelease - I don't think it's that useful.  Why use this for example, instead of PC Zone's review (Google it), or the Edge review (Issue 77)?  List the Computer Games Magazine score in the review box. - hahnch e n 15:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Edge review is on the article. I don't know why the review box doesn't show it. I will fix it and add Computer Games Magazine to it. Additionally, i will add some from the Edge review to the article as well as PC Zone's review. Thansk for the tip. Also, I have not the CVG magazine at hand, I guess the one who does is but he's inactive. —  ΛΧΣ  21™  17:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Gaming Age is a website that has been active since the 90s. They are similar to GameSpot and IGN, and have worked with them for what it seems. As far as i can tell, the website is reliable and their reviews are made by video game journalists. Here is the profile of Gaming Age in Metacritic. If the site have them to compile its score, i think it's reliable enough. — ΛΧΣ  21™  17:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not about reliability. It's about influence and importance.  Same for the point about allgame, I honestly don't know anyone who has ever given a crap about what allgame had to say in a review, do you? - hahnch e n 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ooh well yes, i understand. I've used Allgame several times when references are scarce. Also, i know this is useless to say but the one who ordered the reviews was . I will see what i can do to post out the most influencial, although i consider that the result will be the same, as all critics praised the game, and most reviews say the same. — ΛΧΣ  21™  20:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I read Edge review and found nothing worthy to write. Otherwise, i'm impressed by the review on PC Zone. Is completely detailed and great. Thanks for the tip :) I loved it. I added it to the first paragraph. — ΛΧΣ  21™  15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Your PC Zone quote makes no sense, it's incomplete and out of context. I've included the review in the boxout.  As I mentioned at WT:VG, try checking out the Computer Gaming World archive if you need more sources. - hahnch e n 23:01, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm I cut the last part of the review and i'm thinking on moving it to another paragraph. Also, i consider that we don't need more sources than the ones on the article. — ΛΧΣ  21™  23:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Support A shockingly great article ;). What you can do is to link "port" in "Release". I must admit that my support may be biased as I really like the first part ;) Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :D — ΛΧΣ  21™  16:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment on sources I share Hahnchen's concerns regarding sourcing: *First, Gaming Age: there's an ongoing discussion regarding it's validity here: basically the current incarnation is transparently pretty bad, but it's been argued that reviews dating from a previous, more professional era (which would include this review) are valid sources. This may actually be a fair point generally. But: I would seriously question whether a then-young web publication, which did not stay professionally viable for long, can be considered an FA-quality source (even if generally okay for say GAs if nothing much else is available). *The other one I want to point out is Game Revolution, which has the opposite problem. If one looks through the numerous archived discussions (at WP:VG/RS) on this site, one will note that it was repeatedly deemed unreliable until recently. If one checks the review cited in this article, only the author's first name is given: Colin. And if you click that you get a forum-style "Member profile". Basically, this site used to have a strong community-fansite feel to it, and has gradually improved over the years. Take a look at the staff page. This has a small list of current editorial staff and current contributors, and a long and dubious list of past ones: listed here is "Colin", still with no second name provided. This is one that I think is now fine for GAs where sources are scarce, but old articles are a definite no-no for FA-quality. bridies (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed both sources from the article. I do think they are not reliable enough at this level. — ΛΧΣ  21™  02:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, those sources have been removed, and I've struck those points. I've still some concerns similar to Hahnchen's about, from the other side, a lack of representation of top-quality sources; I believe this is being worked on presently. bridies (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


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