Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Descent (1995 video game)/archive1

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 1 November 2019 [1].

Descent (1995 video game)

Nominator(s): ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 23:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Descent is "a spacecraft-based first-person shooter and shoot 'em up video game developed by Parallax Software and released by Interplay Productions in 1995". The subject is considered iconic for its unique combination of the six degrees of freedom and first-person shooter mechanics, and its success led to two immediate sequels: Descent II and Descent 3, also receiving critical acclaim.

Before I became a major contributor to it, the article was a mess. It had technical information that was not suitable for Wikipedia, as well as an inadequate lead and several inappropriate uses of news and announcements, particularly in the lead. I rewrote the lead to summarize the entire article and replaced the technical information with a history of the game's development. I managed to find an abundance of sources on the Internet, and I used them for expansion and to verify numerous unsourced contents. When I was done, I then took this article to GA, which passed the review, and even during and after the review, I made other improvements not addressed in the review such as correcting dates of the sales charts and adding an alt text for the cover art.

With my involvement, I have demonstrated passion and eagerness in fixing the article. In that, I have also demonstrated the patience needed to become familiar with the FA criteria and prepare the article for the status. There are no edit wars or any obvious mistakes, so I can reasonably expect constructive criticism with which I can readily and easily improve the article. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 23:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

Hi, I think this is your first FAC -- if so, a belated welcome! Generally we close reviews that haven't attracted any commentary after two or three weeks but I'll give this some more time. Can I suggest that you actively seek some reviews from members of related projects? Also you might care to review a few active FAC noms -- not that we encourage quid pro quo reviews (and certainly not qpq supports) but reviewing does get you noticed and can lead to others reviewing your work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

This is by way of a kick-start, hopefully. I'm well out of my comfort zone here, belonging as I do to the pre-Merlin era, and I don't normally even try to review video game article, but a few odd comments might be useful to you, and may encourage others with more knowledge to delve a little deeper.

General; the prose looks reasonably fluent and well prepared, but without knowledge of the jargon I found a few terms hard to understand. It's worth remembering that Wikipedia articles are for a general readership, not merely for those with specific knowledge of or interest in the topic. What Wikipedia is not is relevant here.
I noticed, tacked on to a paragraph end, the obervation "No further announcement about it has been made since". This may be true now, but it might not always be. There's no need to report on something that hasn't happened, so I'd drop this.
Likewise I saw "to no avail" added. This should either be within the reference or, as above, dropped, or reworded in some way.
I saw a number of examples of multiple citation strings, some containing nine, ten or eleven separate citations. It's hard to imagine that they are all necessary in these cases. For example, why does the simple sentence "Common complaints tended to focus on Descent's ability to disorient players, as well as potentially induce motion sickness" require nine citations? Where multiple citation is unavoidable, you should use bundling.

That's all from me for the moment. My guess is that this well-written article will be appreciated by the cognoscenti, and I look forward to seeing how it fares in this review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks later: No acknowledgement, no response. If you show no interest in your own nomination, why should anyone else bother? Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gamingforfun365: Are you still paying attention to this nomination? GamerPro64 01:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this October 16 edit answer? GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 01:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should at least acknowledge the FAC then. Because you have not worked on the article in eleven days between that edit and Brian's comment. GamerPro64 15:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - You do have a point. I was awfully quiet when I read Brian's first comment and addressed some of the issues, and I did leave quietly like a clever mouse after I made the edits. That type of nonverbal language does imply that I do not take this FAC seriously. That will change, and the mouse will no longer be silent. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 07:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month without any declaration of support for promotion, and doesn't seem to be heading in the right direction at present. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. In the mean time, please action feedback as appropriate. --Laser brain (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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