Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)/archive3

< Wikipedia:Peer review | Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)

Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)

Previous peer review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I think this is close to FA status. Just wondering what eles needs to be done. Buc (talk) 09:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • The following criteria was listed for the previous FA review, and subsequent demotion:
    I've placed this article for FAR as I don't personally believe it meets FAC standards, especially for comprehensiveness. Much detail of the game has been left out. Voice casting is not present and although linking to another article on characters is present, a summary of key characters isn't there, budget has not been included. Criticism of the game has not been levied in any great detail and its impact on the history of the Playstation has not been commented on.
    I don't believe that this article offers a comprehensive view of the topic and request that others have a look and forward their opinions. Thanks Mouse Nightshirt | talk 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The article has also recently been promoted to GA class, with the following comment left:
    Really, if you fix the prose of the article, and trim the plot section, this article would pass FAC, no sweat. The organization is all there, you just need a serious copyedit to make the article encyclopedic. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— haha169 (talk) 05:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that the comprehensiveness issue has been resolved (Personally, I agree with the character section as is). As such it seems that the concerns of the FAR has been addressed.
  • It seems to me that the plot section is within reasonable limits, but it seems to me that the tone of this section was better when the article was still featured.
  • The tone of the article does not always distinguish reality from fiction, please refer to the guidelines in WP:WAF in this regard.
  • I do agree with haha169 that the article needs a proper copy edit: My copying a single section into a word processor and running a spelling check showed numerous problems. Note that it will not be copy edited until comments have been left on this page.
  • The tone of the article is not always suitable for encyclopaedic purposes: "Solid Snake is armed with many items and gadgets, such as thermal goggles and a cardboard box disguise. This emphasis on stealth promotes a less violent form of gameplay — firefights against large enemy teams will likely result in heavy damage and often death for the protagonist." Consider: "Solid Snake is equiped with many items and gadgets in the game – including thermal goggles and a cardboard box disguise – which emphasise stealth and promotes less violent gameplay since firefights against large enemy teams will often result in heavy damage or death."
  • G.A.S 05:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So do you think that with a small rewrite this would be really to be nominated? Buc (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, getting a thorough copy edit is the highest priority right now. There are some minor items as well (mostly nitpicking):
      • There are some paragraphs with only 2 sentences: these should be expanded, or merged, if possible.
      • The characters section is a bit short (Per WP:SS, this should be 2x the daughter article's length.
      • There are some citations needed. (example: Last paragraph)
      • Some citations are not properly formatted (example: #3)
      • Some storyline citations are quote fist, then source, or vica versa. They should be consistent.
      • Regards, G.A.S 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy comments
  • The YEAR in video gaming links are unnecessary IMO.
  • "review tallying website Metacritic's aggregate" --> "aggregate website Metacritic" (more concise)
  • I don't like the use of Windows PC... PC works fine for me.
  • Don't go for FAC before the The Twin Snakes section merge thing is done.
  • "from MGS2 added to Twin Snakes." - use their full names
  • Ref 24; h2g2 isn't really a reliable source.
    • And I don't think it should have italics.

Not in the mood for a prose review now, but I can look at that at some stage if you wish. giggy (:O) 23:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashnard comments
  • "video and computer game", should probably just use "video game" as opposed to stating both.
  • "leading some to call it an "interactive movie".[6]" If you're stating more than one i.e. "some", then it shouldn't be verified by a single ref making the claim, unless the source itself says that some have referred to it as this.
  • Prose isn't great in parts, like "Snake also confronts and defeats members of FOXHOUND.[9]" being added at the end of the paragraph. Doesn't flow well. Cut out redundant alsos.
  • "well-received publicly and critically", change "publically" to "commercially".
  • Lead needs to be a comprehensive summary; should be a reference to the game's music.
  • "The player must navigate the protagonist". Change "navigate" to "direct".
  • The sentence after ref 16 is too long and is just clumsy. The prose isn't great, and it probably isn't necessary to define each mode individually.
  • "perform techniques" Are techniques really performed?
  • "third-person camera; which" Are you sure the semi-colon is correct here?
  • There are redundancies, such as mentioning the cardboard boxes twice.
  • "firefight", I don't know what this is specifically, but it links only to "battle", so doesn't explain the term.
  • "heavy damage for the player." What, the player actually gets hurt?
  • Again with choppy prose: "During the mission, Snake receives support and advice via radio. Colonel Roy Campbell, Solid Snake's former commanding officer, supports with mission advice and battle tactics." Both of these could have been easily merged into one fluent and concise sentence.
  • Passive voice is frequent in the article; try to change to the active voice where possible.
  • "and genetic counterpart to" This phrasing really doesn't convey to me that they are both clones deriving from the Big Boss. Ambiguous.
  • "Members are Revolver Ocelot," Ungrammatical.
  • I really would just cut most of "Characters" given the link and maybe just mention Solid, Liquid, and FOXHOUND generically. It's a bit needless, and does not flow well.
  • The plot section hurts my eyes (too long), however, I do understand the difficulties given the nature of the plot.
  • "In 2005," Best to establish out-of-universe perspective by saying that it was set in "2005", but was written in the '90s, and thus was a futuristic setting.
  • I'm not going to look at the plot too deeply, but it has a point-by-point style. Needs a total rewrite in the style of a general summary.
  • "Kojima originally planned the third Metal Gear game, to be called Metal Gear 3, and to release it for the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer in 1994." Redundant commas. Difficult to read. Use "intended" instead of "planned for".
  • Proceeding sentence requires several re-read to understand. Re-read the whole thing carefully because a few things don't make sense.
  • "However due" Needs a comma
  • "also contained the Metal Gear Solid title, and follow a new numeral progression." Inconsistent tenses.
  • The fourth paragraph contains three sequential simple sentences, all without connectives. I'm sorry, but the prose is really poor.
  • "released thorough Europe" Watch out for typos.
  • "Music played in-game has a synthetic feel with increased pace and introduction of strings during tense moments, with a looping style endemic to video games" Seems like OR to me without a source.
  • Inconsistency in grammatical usage from lead to main body "shipping more than six million copies"-"shipping over 6 million copies worldwide".
  • "topped sales charts". "topped" is probably too informal here.
  • "by enemies rather than fight them has been used in many games since." Unless you have a source saying that this happened because of MGS, then this is meaningless.
  • Second paragraph in "Reception" doesn't seem to have any structure and is over-reliant on quotes.
  • Make sure the external links conform to WP: EL.

I'm going to leave it there without looking at the sources. Needless to say, this needs a major copyedit if it is to have any chance of making FA again. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 09:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geuiwogbil comments
  • You're going to get some opposition if you try to push this through FA without more print-based video game journalism. GameSpot, IGN and Edge weren't the most important tastemakers back in '98; EGM and OPM were, IIRC. Some reportage from the non-specialist press would be good too, like the kind of coverage used to bolster recently FA-d Myst and Riven. Did the MSM have anything to say about MGS?
  • I think the critical consensus on the PC version should go in the "Reception" section. Also: It seems tacky to cite Metacritic's aggregate for specific comments. Do at least cite one of the major reviews of the game, from PC Gamer or GameSpot or some such. Not "Evil Avatar". I don't think they have a strong enough brand to justify getting the sole right to editorial comment.
  • What does the "West" at the end of "Konami Computer Entertainment Japan" mean? Is there another developer in the "East"? Is that part of the company title? Why is it sized differently than the parenthetical "PC port" on the following line?
  • Why don't the PAL release dates have citations?
  • Some of your references link the publisher titles (for example, references 60–66); others do not (for example, references 1–3). Please keep your reference formatting consistent.
  • Why do you italicize IGN in some of your references but not in others?
  • Why do you list "IGN Staff" as an author in some of your citations (like in refs 49 and 50), and not in others (like refs 1 and 2)?
  • There's a lot of formatting variation in your citations to the game. Why is ref 8 capped off with a "(Metal Gear Solid, introductory sequence) Konami Computer Entertainment Japan West, 1998", when ref 23 gets a mere "(Metal Gear Solid)"?
  • There's a lot of variation in the date formats you provide. Why do refs 78, 79, and 85 give a (YYYY-MM-DD) format when most of your other citations give a (Month Day, Year) format?
  • Ref 6 is lacking author info.
  • The page ref 6 links to doesn't contain the words "interactive movie". You could consider linking to individual pages, given that the only one you really need is this 'un.
  • Also: It's a duplicate of ref 25. Seems a bit redundant to call it "GameSpot's The History of MetalGear. By GameSpot." but I can see why you'd do it.
  • Ref 13, to Amazon, seems to be redundant. Given that you already have a reliable source to back up the rather incontestable statement "a remake, Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes was later released for the Nintendo GameCube", I'd advise cutting it.
  • Also: could you give some more specificity on the GC, PC, and Integral releases? I'd prefer actual dates to vague wordings like "later".
  • What makes the "Internode Games Network", and, more specifically, "Matt K", a reliable source? Given that they're a "services company" dealing in "Data and Voice services" in "Australia", I don't think they're a top-of-the-line source for MGS. (ref 43)
  • I'm getting a Page Load Error on ref 45. Also: What makes http://www.gamerstoday.com/ a reliable source? Also: Where's the date?
  • Spectacular job on burying the lead in ref 46. "Metal Gear is coming to the Nintendo 64"!? Why isn't that in the text!? Whatever happened to that plan? That's like a Halo: Combat Evolved-sized switcheroo.
  • Also: Ref 46 doesn't support the claim it's attached to, "that development for Metal Gear Solid began in early 1996". The article states: "The game has been in development for two full years." The article is dated to "Jun 17, 1997". By my math, that means the game began development in early 1995. No?
  • No date on ref 47!! Argh, guy, start consistently and completely formatting your references!
  • No date on ref 48! But I can see one in the article it links to!
  • NO DATE ON REF 49!!!
  • The links in ref 51 are dead. I got all 404-d. Also: "Grant"? Is that his full name, like "McLovin"?
  • No link on ref 53? Do you just have a stash of Konami press releases lying about?
  • It seems mildly disingenuous to have the first words under the "Original version" subheading be "The English version of Metal Gear Solid ". I was expecting info on the Japanese release! I don't think it would be too much trouble to cut that subheading.
  • Why do we trust "NCSX" as a "reliable source" (ref 56)?
  • Likewise "Junker HQ" (ref 57).
  • Sentence glitch: "once under The Best range and second time as a PSone Books title"
  • No author on ref 58. (Hint: It's 'Jeff Haynes').
  • What makes http://www.absolute-playstation.com/api_review/rmgsmission.htm a "reliable source" (ref 62)?
  • What makes http://www.soundtrackcentral.com a reliable source (ref 71)? Also: Why do you give the name as FIRSTNAME LASTNAME rather than your standard LASTNAME, FIRSTNAME? Same prob with ref 88. And ref 104.
  • You need a "DATE" and an "ISSUE NUMBER" on ref 73.
  • Ref 77 doesn't give a publisher title. (Hint: It's 'GameRankings').
  • Ref 79 doesn't look reliable. http://www.acorn-gaming.org.uk/index.php3?p=News/WorldOld ? Surely there's a better way to reference the statement "X topped sales charts". Perhaps the sales charts themselves?
  • Dude! 1UP.com is an ALL-CAPS company (ref 83). Also: NO DATE. (Hint: It's somewhere between 1/22/2004 and 1/12/2005). OR AUTHOR. (Hint: It's 'Nich Maragos')
  • Why should we care what GameFAQs' userbase thinks? (ref 86)
  • Ref 95 is unnecessary. Why are you citing the "Reader's Choice" page when you make no mention of its contents?
  • What makes "Metal Gear Saga" a "reliable source"?
  • Likewise http://www.metalgearsolid.org/
  • Also: this link is dead.

That's all I have time for right now. You should always be on the lookout for glitches, weak references, and poor formatting. Thanks! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Metal_Gear_Solid_(1998_video_game)/archive3&oldid=1141908499"