Talk:Descent II/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 04:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello!! I'll be the reviewer for this GAN as part of the 2021 July GA Drive. Due to school/work obligations, I will likely need to give feedback piecewise but I'll make sure to check off pieces as they are assessed. Any minor grammatical edits I will take care of unless they are systemic. Etriusus (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Templates for my own convenience:  Done

Criteria Found Here: Wikipedia:Good article criteria

---

1. It is reasonable well written the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

They increase or enhance the ship's resources, including its weaponry, which is divided into primary and secondary weapons., this sentence does not flow well and needs rewriting. The jump from resources to weaponry is abrupt and then the term "resources" is never used again. Either rewrite or cut. Etriusus (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

All primary weapons fire bolts of energy, except the Vulcan and Gauss cannons, two gun turrets that consume physical ammunition instead. If you are going to mention the weapons by name, please list out the entirety of the weapon list. Just namedropping these in makes following the article difficult. Realistically, the passages on weapons need to be either simplified or restructured. Etriusus (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The sentence Parallax Software began Descent II's development as an expansion pack that would have enhanced the original Descent game using a CD's storage, but it later evolved into a full-blown project lasting about one year. needs revision, the phrasing of "enhance" and "full-blown project" are not encyclopedic and seem somewhat puffery in nature. Etriusus (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The issue of puffery appears occasionally in the article, terms like "unique" and "simple". These need to be removed. See WP:PUFFERY. Etriusus (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

"The plot is simple and linear[4] and is mostly provided for the introductory and concluding full-motion video cutscenes." Unless "simple" is a video game term I am unfamiliar with, rewording this sentence as it is not encyclopedic and can come across as opinion. If this is an assessment by a game developer or mentioned in the manual, please attribute it. Etriusus (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable It contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

The source: "Pilarczyk, Paweł (September 1996). "Opis – Descent 2" [Description – Descent 2]. Gambler (in Polish). No. 34. p. 10. Omega Cannon — powoduje wyładowanie elektryczne na celu, dzięki czemu nie potrzeba dokładnie namierzać. Jest bardzo silne, ale szybko się nagrzewa i po każdym strzale potrzebuje kilku sekund na ochłodzenie się. [The Omega Cannon causes an electric discharge on the target, so you do not need to aim precisely. It is very strong, but heats up quickly and takes a few seconds to cool down after each shot.]" needs to have its link repaired. Etriusus (talk) 05:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of your refs are in a bare URL format, others are in a CS1 format, and others are templated in a different manner. I.e. source 61 is a web template while 62-64 are bare URLs. Please standardize these citations as articles must maintain a consistent citation style. Please note, Cite book/magazine templates are fine and are exempt from this. Etriusus (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

All inline citations are from reliable sources;

It contained no original research;

In the lead, the line A sequel, Descent 3, was released in 1999. is not mentioned in the body of the article, either edit in a mention or remove. Etriusus (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

Earwig isn't picking up anything. The line "If you don't like Descent at least a little bit, make no mistake, there is something wrong with you." pops up but this is cited and attributed.Etriusus (talk) 05:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage

It addresses the main aspects of the topic;

This section covers the plot of the game very well and the reception section gives adequate coverage. Etriusus (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In the sentence, "After the "Material Defender...." it appears that something is missed. Whether the mission to destroy all the mines in the solar system is from Descent I or Decent II is unclear and it currently reads as though the character's motivation/preceding events are missing.

It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

A few sections may be a bit too detailed for Wikipedia's standards. The article is meant to be a summary, not an exact retelling. This issue is found in the "Gameplay" section, specifically, the paragraph Within each level... is a bit too detailed in its content. At the very least, this paragraph is not well understood without prior knowledge on the topic. Etriusus (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

4. It has a neutral point of view

It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

Reception section looks good, fair coverage given to both sides. Covered briefly but adequately in the intro section Etriusus (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

5. It is stable

It does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Page is stable, no ongoing edit wars observed. Etriusus (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

Two images are present on the page, along with a Reception template. The reception template is properly sourced, formated, and in line with previous GA assessments. I always prefer additional images, especially considering the length of this page. Perhaps additional images of the unit's hardware or publishing company would be a good addition. This I will leave optional but it would improve the overall article quality. Etriusus (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, archived in my email account's inbox is an email from Revival Productions, who responded to my request for free photographs of Descent's creators, Mike Kulas and Matt Toschlog. They said they were willing to do so, but needed to know which ones to release into the public domain. They were correct when they guessed that my links to the images did not format well, and so were missing. I tried to email them back several times with the links hopefully fixed, but never received a response. This was back in August 2019, at the same time that I was working on Descent (1995 video game), so would you say it is worth emailing them about it again? FreeMediaKid$ 01:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid! This is totally up to you. If you want to reach out to see if those images can be uploaded that would be awesome but it is in no way a requirement for a GAN. I've already checked off the page for its photos and media, all of them are within GA parameters. I just wanted to propose any further quality of life improvements, especially if you want to one day take this to FA status. Etriusus (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and gave it another go for old times' sake. I specified which photographs and am awaiting a response hopefully confirming that we may use them. To keep the conversation brief, I also provided them instructions on what to do next if they do consent, so that Wikimedia Commons can verify the permission. I will post an update if they do reply back. In the meantime, more Descent II work for me. FreeMediaKid$ 19:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Copyright and image justification seem to be in order. Captions are present, one is particularly long but this seems to be in line with previous GAs. Etriusus (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

First Impressions: This page needs a fair bit of work before signoff for GA status. IF you have questions, comments, or rationale for why something should remain as is, feel free to comment here. Since it took me a day to get my initial review out, I'll gladly extend the review window by an extra day, unless you request more time. I will continue to add comments should I find anything else and will gladly help with any edits. Etriusus (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Recommendations

This is a summary of what needs to be done, detailed points are listed above. Feel free to use the  Done template to indicate when an issue has been resolved.

1. Repair link to source 22.
2. Standardize citation scheme.
3. Add additional photos (Optional)
4. Remove Puffery
5. Reword indicated sentences
6. Remove or cite unsourced content

I fixed all of the problems above and a few others in a single edit, except the one concerning the standardization of the references. For one, I do not see any evidence of a bare reference URL. I take it that you are detecting something that I have been previously unaware of? FreeMediaKid$ 22:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid!: Thank you for fixing everything, I'll give the article one last pass before signing off. The updated prose looks excellent and I cannot see any major issues that need addressing. I spoke with another GA reviewer because I was unsure of citation formatting myself. They clarified that the citation format issue I was seeing is not necessary for GAN so no need to worry about it. Excellent work on this article and congrats on passing the GA review!!! Etriusus (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

As a side note, I decided that the cover art would look better if it were reuploaded as a PNG file, rather than JPEG, which is better suited for photographs. The reason is so that the image could be displayed without as many artifacts as the original version (which seems to have already been retouched to begin with). Ideally there ought to be no artifacts, but as far as our ability to digitize cover arts, I think that is as close as we can get. And at last, the articles on the entire Descent trilogy are all good articles. FreeMediaKid$ 00:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)