Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Myst III: Exile

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 User:SandyGeorgia 03:08, 28 June 2008 [1].

Myst III: Exile

edit

Ooh, big imposing 'Read this' now before I start the page, interesting... Well then. We all know the drill, I brought the other previous two games here in the last couple months, now it’s time for round three (and if you think I haven’t finished mining this particular ore vein, there’s still four other video games after this one… I’m going chronologically. *Evil Laugh*) Images properly tagged, got all the requisite sections to be complete, quite stable. The article has had a peer review, and since I know I’m weaker with prose I got some copyediting help prior to dropping it here. I popped over to the regal Ealdgyth to make sure my delightfully tangy sources were of the reliable type, and with said preparation I now submit it for your consideration. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I gave it the usual copyedit, dash cleanup, and reference formatting pass. One thing I noticed about the ref formatting: you had all the newspapers entered in the 'publisher' parameter (resulting in no italics), and the gaming websites entered in the 'work' parameter (resulting in italics). I'm pretty sure this is backwards, no? I've switched the newspaper ones to use the work parameter, as I'm positive about that. One other question: is another screenshot possible, given that UbiSoft gave blanket permission for user-created screenshots? Maralia (talk) 04:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, newspapers should have italics, and gaming websites shouldn't. (Random example; GameSpot ref 13 [2] shouldn't have italics.) And yeah, another screenshot would be all good (and free!). giggy (:O) 09:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and published by Ubisoft." - it's a bit unclear as to if Ubisoft published the first two.
  • "versions for the Xbox and PlayStation 2 were released later." - less vague? What year, even?
  • "by writing descriptive book." - missing a word?
  • "The project required millions of US dollars" - again, can you be less vague?
    • "Presto spent millions of dollars developing the game," - here too
  • "GameSpot's editor Greg Kasavin described the Myst series as having lost its relevance.[2]" - why is ref 2 Time magazine, not GameSpot?
  • "Despite fairly strong sales, Presto Studios eventually dropped software development entirely" - any idea why? Was it related to this game?
  • "like those in the earlier Myst games, were used again" - the "again" seems slightly redundant.
  • "to have as much "purpose" as possible" - can this not be quoted?
  • "It eventually sold one million units within the first twelve months of release" - eventually is redundant
  • The reviews box doesn't list anywhere near as many reviews as are cited in the reception section... (pet peeve)
  • ""Exile has everything you loved or hated about Myst and Riven." - check italics
  • "The next game in the Myst series, entitled Revelation, would be produced and published by Ubisoft." - probably no harm in sourcing this.

giggy (:O) 10:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gone through and fixed redundancies, added the sources, reworded the 'purpose' bit so it makes more sense, clarified some bits. As to the GameSpot-Time thing; Time quoted Kasavin. As for millions of dollars, can't tell you for sure, because they only stated multi-million dollar budget in the source (Game Developer). Oh yeah, and for the reviews, I only put in the video game publications because the print sources didn't have scores. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support; all concerns addressed. giggy (:O) 23:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I rechecked them again even though I had checked them over previously). Ealdgyth - Talk 11:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Need to close the Peer Review. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some sort of template? I removed its transclutions, I didn't know what else to do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Barely anything's on the external link to Mobygames; I would remove it.
  • "was given the task of creating the third Myst game after presenting its ideas to the creators of the franchise." Best to change passive to active. You brought in more passive with the lead audio info.
  • "Presto Studios eventually dropped software development entirely" A pedantic one maybe, but I'd replace the word "drop" here—it's too informal in this context for my liking.
  • A small reference to "Audio" should probably be made in the lead.
  • "The game also has an optional Zip mode, like Myst and Riven, to cross explored terrain quickly". I haven't played these games, so I don't have a clue what this mode is.
  • I'm assuming that the game is controlled by the mouse and keyboard only. You have stated that the mouse and keyboard are used for movement and picking up objects in separate sentences. If I've assumed correctly, it would be easier to simply say that the game is controlled mainly by the keyboard and mouse, as opposed to repeating the point.
  • "by a plague and nearly wiped out". Again, too informal for my linking.
  • The first paragraph of the story is written in past tense, and suddenly shifts to the present tense with the word "Suddenly". Maintain the same tense. "Suddenly" really should not be used at all, ever. "a mysterious man"?
  • "Releeshahn book" From what I read, there's no explanation of what this book is specifically.
  • "Presto spent millions of dollars" The specific currency should be specified, as in the lead.
  • "which nine months was spent" Were?
  • Pre-rendered is hyphenated in the WP article, so it probably should be here.
  • "which one reviewer described as "a collaboration of Jules Verne, Rube Goldberg and Claes Oldenburg".[6]" Save it for the "Reception" section. It shouldn't be here. No, my point was that information relating to critical reception shouldn't be in "Development".
  • "filled with physical props" As opposed to?
  • If the GR and MC ratings are given in the table, then I see no point in reiterating them in prose.
  • Having a paragraph dedicated to positive criticism, and then one for negative critcism is just basic. I think it would be preferable if the "Reception" was larger and organised by features such as graphics, gameplay etc. Pros and cons should be integrated.

Ealdgyth covered the sources, so I'll leave that. Nice work so far. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 12:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed most of the grammar issues; as to the "book" portion, it states in the paragraph previous they serve as links to worlds known as Ages. The game rankings and metacritic scores are in the text because they give an informative snapshot of critical reception; as for the reception section itself, I've seen few video game FACs that don't use the positive-negative layout. As I see it, it's purely choice, and as the specific portions of the game were not elaborated on to the extent of other games, I don't think such a format would suit the content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a different format is better for "Reception" section, but as you say, it's a matter of choice and preference. For GR and MC, I'm talking about why they are there as well as being in the table. This is redundant. Striked comments. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, removed it from the table. I put the goldberg quote in the development instead of reception because it describes a style, but is not clarified as a positive or negative aspect of the game in the review; I thought it would make more sense in development in order to give the reader some context to their styles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The last paragraph of the lead is a bit strange; it not only calls out specific reviewers and their comments but also introduces sources. On the last point, either the entire lead should thus be inline-sourced, or no sourcing at all be used; my inclination is to de-specify the reviewers and summarize their comments, as to not require the use of sources for specific quotes. Is there any chance of numbers for sales to compare against 10 million for Riven? --MASEM 13:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the last bit to include sales. As for the reviewer comments, I just stuck in both because I thought they encapsulated the two sides of the coin, as it were, of reception. I went ahead and removed the refs as they aren't direct quotes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This might be a good trial case of an FAC to cross post to WikiProject Military history. More because WPMH puts out quality articles, and exceptional FAs. --Izno (talk) 04:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While Giggy gave his support, it appears that the italics issue he raised hasn't been fixed yet. Kariteh (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I only swapped the publishers to work the first time around. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think all issues have been addressed. Kariteh (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Myst_III:_Exile&oldid=1138467425"