Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri/archive1

Resolved comments from H3llkn0wz

 * "a 1996 tactical first-person shooter computer game developed" -- overlink; year is also not needed since article topic is not tied with year per se. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed overlinking. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "and undertakes missions in large outdoor environments." -- what is the goal of her missions? "large outdoor environments" is a VG buzzword and does not really give much info. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to "against pirates and the Hegemony". It's kind of a spoiler, but it's all I've got. "large outdoor environments" was meant to hint at the gameplay, but I guess it was too vague. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Reception of its graphics was mixed, however, and many noted the game's steep system requirements." -- "however" reads weird in the middle of a sentence; granted it sounds fine with an appropriate pause, but reads weird at first pass. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I like it in the middle, but I moved it up to the beginning of the sentence. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "--attacks.[1] The player uses a freely movable mouse cursor to aim weapons and manipulate the heads-up display (HUD) interface.[1]" -- same ref, no need to duplicate. Same for some later sentences. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Additional missions—whose contents may be selected" -- what is "contents"? Location/objectives/enemy forces? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Among many, many, many other variables. I summarized as "contents" to avoid cruft. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Each may be fitted with such equipment as lasers, particle beams,.." -- these are not real items (no real equivalent and no intrinsic general reader's understanding of what it is) and as such should either be explained or omitted. In the lines of "Characters may be equipped with a range of weapons". Unless it is critical to context that the weapons are futuristic and probably make a "pew pew" sound, which is what my impression is :) — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True; hadn't considered that. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure of this, but is "in a science fiction depiction" correct? "science fiction" is a noun not adjective, so I would say "in a science fictional depiction"? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I think you're right. I actually stole that phrase from another article without considering that it could be wrong. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "As the game opens" -- this was probably a cutscene, but the topic is a video game, and games "begin/start" not "open". — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Terra Nova was conceived in 1992, around the time that Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, Looking Glass Technologies' first game, was completed" to "Terra Nova was conceived in 1992, around the time Looking Glass Technologies' first game Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss was completed" - less commas is better
 * Took your phrasing, but added in a couple of commas to avoid a run-on. Same number of commas as the original, but the sentence still flows better with the new structure. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "wrote a design document" -- wikilink game design document — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that there was an article on this. Linked. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "It was subject to numerous delays,[42] which Schmidt later attributed to its lack of a set deadline;" -- "It" is a long way from the initial subject and you can probable say "The game was..." so the second "its" makes mroe sence. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "as "trying to go with the same philosophy" of the company's earlier games" -- "as the comp..."? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... might be correct, but I can't tell. Changed, regardless. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ", it would look second-rate".[42] " -- full stop before quote mark, as this is full sentence. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "toward the cutscenes' production" to "toward the cutscene production" no need for plural and possessive, e.g. "we sell cats' toys" to "we sell cat toys" — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * True. Removed the "the", as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "the team decided that Terra Nova, with its realistic, simulation-style gameplay, "wasn't much fun"." -- not sure "with..." part needs to be wrapped in commas. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Removing them would cause a strange run-on, so I just changed the phrasing: "the team decided that Terra Nova's realistic, simulation-style gameplay 'wasn't much fun'." JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "already-lengthy" -- is this really a compound? I would say "already lengthy" — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I must read too many pseudo-intellectual music reviews. Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Although it sold more than 100,000 units, Terra Nova was a commercial failure" to "Although Terra Nova sold more than 100,000 units, it was a commercial failure". I can appreciate the writing style, but the sooner subject is introduced the less time one has to spend re-reading. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ""..Either way you see it, it's more fun than a barrelful [sic] of ... monkeys"." -- what exactly did this quote mean? That it's fun? I don't think reviewer quotes like this translate will into WP articles. You could replace the quote with "and said it was fun" to the same effect. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This quote was a nightmare. I tried to incorporate your fix. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "..strike force to be reckoned with".[52]" and "..this is one of its strongest assets"." -- full stop before quote; full sentence. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "The 1998 video game Jurassic Park: Trespasser features a procedural animation system very similar to the one used in Terra Nova.[46]" -- is this important above UNDUE? I'm sure many games used some thing very similar to TN. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Jurassic Park: Trespasser was designed by Seamus Blackley--the same guy who created Terra Nova's physics system. Quite a few other Looking Glass employees worked with him on that game. I figured it was relevant. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "this performance" -- the only "this" I can see is "commercial failure; it did not recoup its development costs". Can a specific cause be used instead of general term, such as "low sales"? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed to "its sales performance". JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, sales don't perform. They can be low/high/average/etc. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was trying to avoid "low sales", since it contradicts a few of my sources. The developers all agree that it barely sold, though, so I guess I'll go with it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "from a character's eye view" - from first person? First person (video games) — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, "from a character's eye view" is intended to convey the idea to non-gamers. As a defense: I inserted this phrase into Halo: Combat Evolved in 2007, and it was quoted by The New York Times Magazine last year. I think that's a pretty strong reason for its inclusion. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice article, editors could take something home from that. You should still wiki-link it though. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Linked. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "assessed it as "Aliens-esque", referencing the 1986 action film" to "assessed it as "Aliens-esque" reference of the 1986 action film" -- no comma, simpler flow. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's meant to suggest that the reviewer was referencing the film, not that the game is a reference. Any idea on how that could be made clearer? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you could go with the simplest "while PC Gamer UK compared it to the 1986 action film Aliens." It is my guess the word "Aliens-esque" is not essential here and "assessed as similar, referencing" is just a long way to say "compared" (or similar synonym). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Earth-like NewHope" -- "Earth-like planet called NewHope"? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, then "planetary" and "planet" would appear in the same sentence. I thought that "planetary" made it pretty clear that we were discussing planets, but, if you disagree, I can try to find a better way of phrasing it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say "...but the inhabitants of Jupiter's moons .. relocate to Alpha Centauri. Planetary settlements in the Alpha Centauri system are built on the Earth-like NewHope and the frozen Thatcher." to "relocate to Alpha Centauri, where they settle on the Earth-like NewHope and frozen Thatcher planets." I know it's joining the sentence, but it's the simplest I can think of without moving PC Zone's sentence. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "with the Hegemony's Alpha Centauri ambassador, Creon Pentheus" -- no comma needed: "teacher John" vs. "John, the teacher" — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "the Hegemony's Alpha Centauri ambassador Creon Pentheus" looks wrong to me. If it was "Alpha Centauri ambassador Creon Pentheus", it would be fine. But completing that second phrasing would result in "with the Hegemony Alpha Centauri ambassador Creon Pentheus", which is possibly correct but nearly unreadable. Going to leave this one as-is. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really see where the unreadability comes in. I mean "the Earth's Great Visconsin teacher John" vs. "the Earth's Great Visconsin teacher, John". The latter needs a pause while the former doesn't. At the same time the latter is grammatically incorrect. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed the sentence a bit to fit with this. Flows better now, I think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "regularly in flux" - "regularly" is a tautology here. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's meant to convey that their priorities changed many times over a long period of time. Couldn't think of a better word. Any ideas? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you said it -- "changed"? "However, the team's development priorities regularly changed, and the programmer..." Simplest I can think of. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "pressured Looking Glass into copying its live-action..." -- "copying"? You mean using the same principle of applying live-action FMVs? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. This structure has always grated on me, but I couldn't think of anything better. Any ideas? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How about "In the team's original plan, Terra Nova consisted of missions that were bookended by simplistic cutscenes, akin to those of the 1990 Origin Systems video game Wing Commander.[35] However, between 1994 and 1995, Origin's released Wing Commander III: Heart of the Tiger that featured live-action full-motion video (FMV) cutscenes. This pressured Looking Glass into using FMVs as well."? That would make sure the reader knows the WCIII is mentioned because they use FMV. Then Looking Glass is pressured into using them too, which is a big fact in itself and can live in a short sentence. If it's too short, it might be attached to the Schmidt's quote. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better. Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Semicolon: "Terra Nova's critical reception was highly positive; reviewers praised its tactical elements, and several compared it to the 1995 video game MechWarrior 2: 31st Century Combat." -- full stop instead, "Terra Nova's critical reception was highly positive" is a self-sufficient sentence. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Semicolon: "Only a small amount of equipment is available at the outset; more becomes accessible as the game progresses." to ":Only a small amount of equipment is available at the outset, but more becomes accessible as the game progresses." — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Semicolon: "Without the grenades, the base is assaulted by Strike Force Centauri;[21] Hegemony equipment is found there." to "Without the grenades, the base is assaulted by Strike Force Centauri,[21] and Hegemony equipment is found there." — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Semicolon:"newly-hired programmer initially led its development; he envisioned it as an exact simulation, in which every element was as realistic as possible" to "The development was initially led by a newly-hired programmer who envisioned it as an exact simulation, in which every element was as realistic as possible" — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Reworked the sentence using your new version. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of semicolon usage. Many of the uses don't need the sentences to be bundled. For example, "The game takes place in 37 missions; each one begins with.." can be written "The game takes place in 37 missions. Each mission begins with.." Simple English. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Semicolons are kind of a writing habit of mine. I fixed the example you gave, but I don't think I could pick out other unnecessary usage on my own. If you see any others, please let me know. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that. I'll try and give it a read for specific changes I can suggest. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inherently wrong with short sentences if they present a full thought. Semicolons is when you have no choice and would have to otherwise leave two short marginally related sentences. At least that is my understanding. "I have a cat. He is very nice." to "I have a cat; he is very nice." but "I have a cat named Mister Rouse. He is very tidy and social." I will point out how I would have written it below, but of course that will remain stylistic suggestions. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of quotes in the section, perhaps some are better paraphrased and most quotes left for reception section? That might also address any close paraphrase/copyright due to using quotes. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At another editor's request during the peer review, I paraphrased over 20 quotes in this section alone. Could you specify the problematic quotes? I don't think I could reduce the number any further on my own. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, I will try and come up with concrete examples. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * So there's my nitpicks. As usual, sorry if I pick or rant to much, better a quicker review with more points than an unfinished review. The major prose points are overuse of long sentences and semicolons; overuse of short quotes paraphrasable at some points, and some less common English words that might have Simple English synonyms that I didn't specifically mention above. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I extensively copyedited the article before nominating it, and received a pretty hefty prose review during the peer review. If you see any more prose issues, you'll need to point them out specifically, because there's no way I'll be able to see them at this point. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have, however, made an attempt to remove unnecessary semicolons. Take a look. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * " the game's engine renders the foreground in texture-mapped polygonal 3D, but—according to PC Gamer US—displays a "bitmapped background in the distance" to provide the "illusion of detail"." -- A big "huh?" for anyone not into VG graphics. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This sentence is the result of many, many clarification attempts. I don't think I can describe it in simpler terms. This element is extremely important to the game, so I can't simply remove discussion of it. It's kind of a complex graphical "cheat", however, so the average reader probably won't be able to fully grasp it. Since it's in the "Technology" section, I figure most people will expect certain things to be over their heads. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they essentially made a skybox. How about "The problem was solved by programmer James Fleming: the game's engine renders and applies textures to foreground objects in full 3D graphics, but uses static images for distant terrain, giving the illusion of detail."? I think that is more suitable for a general reader. Not sure "according to PC Gamer US" is necessary, since the reference leads there anyway, and it makes reading the already technical sentence harder. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that they created a skybox, actually. I'm not sure skyboxes even existed by this point. Their technique relied on the game's low resolution. Schmidt offered a non-technical description in a somewhat-recent interview: "One interesting thing was the tech we used for drawing the landscape, which at the time was amazing - you could see way farther than in any other outdoor 3D game. It was designed by James Fleming, who now works with me at Harmonix. Basically it depended on the fact that the PC's resolution was so terrible (320x200) that when we were drawing things that were far away, we could fake them horribly, because they were only going to occupy a few pixels on screen anyway." The 1995 PC Gamer article says that it's "a texture mapped polygon foreground with a bitmapped background in the distance to create a seamless illusion of detail". It's kind of tough to explain or even understand, so I went with a direct quote to avoid confusion. I've tried to combine your suggested sentence with the previously existing one. I kept the "according to PCG US" part because I'm actually quoting one of their writers. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "bitmapped" should be linked though, as a technical term. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Semicolon: "Terra Nova has been cited as one of the first squad-oriented games with three-dimensional (3D) graphics; the player is often assisted by artificial intelligence-controlled teammates who may be given tactical commands" -- the two sentences (cited as first 3D and AI mates assist player) are not related, so semicolon shouldn't be used. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the connection is: "... squad-oriented, as in the player is assisted ...". This was more apparent in a previous version of the sentence, which was something like, "Terra Nova has been cited as one of the first 3D games with squad-oriented gameplay; the player is ...". It was changed during the peer review, since the term "3D" requires initial disambiguation. I think that separating the sentences with a period would distort the intended meaning, though. Any suggestions on how I could fix the problem? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see it now, it's fine I guess. Cannot think of anything better without too many changes. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither can I, which is why it's stayed like this. Guess we'll have to leave it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Semicolon: "The game was subject to numerous delays,[42] which Schmidt later attributed to its lack of a set deadline; the team was "trying to go with the same philosophy" as the company's earlier games, in that they would "develop the systems and the game would come out of it"." -- full stop instead. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * These sentences are, in fact, connected, even if the connection may not be that obvious. The philosophy of the previous games was to develop gameplay systems without a deadline, which would then form a game after a long period of iteration. Perhaps I should use a colon instead of a semicolon? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They are connected, but they are long and can stand on their own. In fact, both sentences have two clauses. Grouping them makes four-clause sentence, which is--in my opinion--too long. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Semicolon: "Although Terra Nova sold more than 100,000 units, it was a commercial failure; it did not recoup its development costs" to "Although Terra Nova sold more than 100,000 units, it was a commercial failure and it did not recoup its development costs" — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm trying to convey that it was a commercial failure because it didn't recoup its development costs, per the source. As above, perhaps a colon is what I'm looking for? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So "because" not "and": "Although Terra Nova sold more than 100,000 units, it was a commercial failure because it did not recoup its development costs."? Semicolons really are when using full stop, comma, or conjunctions is worse. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know how I missed that. Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Quotes: For example "Despite this fact, the team continued using the idea and "never thought to change it", despite the serious difficulties involved in achieving it.[35] Schmidt said that the game was "a little bit in limbo" after the programmer left, and that Schmidt inherited the lead programmer position around that time merely because "there was a void to fill and [he] bubbled up to it"." to "Despite this fact, the team continued using the idea, even with the serious difficulties involved in achieving it.[35] Schmidt said that the game was left hanging in the air after the programmer left, and that Schmidt inherited the lead programmer position around that time merely because the position had to be filled. " or similar. But I must admit it's very hard coming up with decent idiom synonyms. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. I took a shot at the ones you mentioned, and will attempt to fix others. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A few of my changes seem to have disappeared. I've reinstated them. I'll get to work on those quotes now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now removed every quote that I'm comfortable with removing. This is a definite improvement. I think that axing any more would hurt the section, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks fine. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Looking Glass Studios" vs. "Looking Glass Technologies" should be used consistently with when they merged. ref #1 (1996), for example is "Studios" where ref #8 (1996) is "Technologies". — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. I tried to eliminate all of the anachronistic uses of "Studios" awhile ago, but I appear to have failed. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A few missing authors (e.g. ref #43 or #47), but I assume they were not specified in the source? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I included author names whenever they were available. PR Newswire and Next Generation Magazine articles are basically always anonymous, and a few of the other sources didn't list their authors, for one reason or another. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Same place, is feature name "FEATURES;" necessary to be all capped? It's stylistic and WP drops that usually. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed this one and others. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pages is abbreviated "p. 22" and "pp. 22; 23", there are some instances of at which use "Pg.". — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should note "pg." is fine too, but since cite webs use "p,", it would be consistent to use "p." in manual formatting too. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll take a shot at this tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Or was I supposed to use semicolons between page numbers as well? I might have misunderstood you. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also is the zero in "Pg. 047" significant? I believe we commit leading zeros even if the total page count is "above" the decimal places shown. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate to be a pain, but I honestly don't understand what you mean. My reference lingo is way out of date. Like with Nikkimaria above, I'm going to have to ask for a translation before I can fix the problem. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant "p. 047" to "p. 47". Is the 0 important? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, I got that ref, including the page number, from an online database. They listed the number with a zero, so I thought I might as well follow along. I don't know enough about newspaper page number schemes to tell whether it's important or not. If it isn't, I'll go ahead and remove it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Just removed it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cites which are not dead yet, should be marked no to lead to live link. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was afraid that this would come up. I'll handle it tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ref #49 date can be safely assumed 2000 from copyright label, and mention from other sites. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ref #44 publish date was April 23, 2000 from —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice find; hadn't thought to dig up the date that way. Added. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What is ref #36 supporting exactly, it's not "Company co-founder Paul Neurath wrote a design document for a tactical, squad-based game with a science fiction setting, and helped the team initiate its development" as it's a cover image. You should give a specific page. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That sentence is supported by this section, which I've now specified in the ref. I reuse that reference quite a bit between LGS articles, so I usually just copy and paste the template around. In this case, though, only one of the three interviews is relevant to the subject, so I can make the link more specific. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ref #6 issue is 29 and date is April 1996 from Magazine release date, e.g. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Impressive sleuthing. Added. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ref #5 date is 1996 from "&copy;1996 Strategy Plus, Inc." — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "Strategy Plus" was a previous, long-forgotten name for Computer Games Magazine. The publication was also called "Computer Games Strategy Plus", and even "Games International". To avoid confusion while using CGM material, I try to stick with the name Wikipedia uses in the magazine's article. I hadn't added the 1996 date because there's no telling when a website's copyright date was inserted--I've seen sites get pretty sloppy in that regard. If you think it should be added, though, then I'll do it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say 1996 is a safe bet, since that's the game's release year and the copyright notice is not placed for future dates. But that's borderline original research. I am not actually sure how much leeway WP allows for such deductions. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Neither am I. I included it anyway, though. Also, I see now that I had, for some reason, already used "Computer Games Strategy Plus" in the article, but not in the references. I went ahead and changed the references, too. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ref #10 date is August 13, 2001 from "Posted on 13-Aug-2001". Also, are you sure Patrick McCarthy is the author? —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That date's a fake, sadly. PC Zone added a huge number of pre-2001 reviews to their site on August 13, 2001, but didn't bother keeping around the dates. I actually found the real date—June 1996—quite awhile after I used that link, but never incorporated it. Changed that. Also, as an explanation for McCarthy's name: old video game magazines—particularly in the UK, I believe—would not include bylines. Instead, the author's name would be introduced in a catchy, usually comedic opening paragraph similar to the one in that review. PC Zone did it a lot. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. I did not know that. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As a note: not all old magazines did this. My explanation last night was too general; I blame my lack of sleep. Certain old VG magazines did it, particularly in the UK, but not every magazine. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ref #9 should use Cite interview and fill both interviewer and subject fields. Also where is "Monzari, Sia" name from? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the cite interview template in all my time on Wikipedia. I'll have to read up on its use before adding it, but I'm a bit tired right now, so I'll leave that for tomorrow. As for the interviewer name, see here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Like all, I don't think it is much different from cite web and similar, it merely allows specifying the interviewer and subject. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. Inserted. Can't say I'm a huge fan of this template, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ref #38, #44, #49 Cite interview — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Didn't specify the interviewer on the TTLG one, though, because no name is given. I just wrote "Staff" so that the template wouldn't break. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As above, I'll handle these after I've acquainted myself with this strange new template. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * is ref #46 and #49 only page #1 used? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. I don't typically list page numbers for online sources, however. Is it required? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably not. I usually do. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Guess I'll go along. Changed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)