Wikipedia:Peer review/Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)/archive2

Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)

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

This peer review discussion is closed.

This follows the article's previous peer review, with Panini! and OceanHok invovled. Planning this for GAN, then FAC in future. I have expanded the article a tiny bit since the last PR. Notifying page creator Motorbicycle, as well as other major contributors Sookenon, Zarex and Khiemmy.

Thanks, Gerald WL 11:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RECOMMENDATION: You should nominate this article for GA status, take it to WP:GAN before FAC. Of course you can still do a PR before the FAC. -ias postb□x 17:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What have I done. Typo, I plan GAN, then FAC in future. Gerald WL 03:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. -ias postb□x 14:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Alexandra

Committing to reviewing this. Please ping me if I haven't left any comments yet by the end of the weekend!--Alexandra^IDV 16:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'm reviewing the article as of this revision

Resolved issues

Images

The non-free use rationale for the cover is not properly filled out (those "n.a."s really are applicable), and only lists "YouTube" as its source which is about as useful as "idk, I found it somewhere"
I've filled the rationale, though am still searching for the cover art source in exact.
I did a reverse image search on google for the image, and filled in a source for it.--Alexandra^IDV 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! Gerald WL 11:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The cover's caption links the term "cover art", which feels like overlinking to me
Delinked.
Gameplay screenshot #1 and #2's non-free use rationales are also not completely filled out
Done.
Screenshot #2 uses "they're" - we don't use contractions like this on WP, change to "they are"
Done.
The case for using a non-free image of the game's physical release is pretty weak - we should only use non-free images when they significantly improve a reader's understanding of the topic, and I don't think that's the case here.
Alexandra IDV, if I take a photo of the physical version where it only takes a small portion of it, will it constitute de minimis? Or if I take a photo of the set akin to the current, will it constitute DM? Not likely to have one and probably have to rely on editors who have it, just asking. Gerald WL 10:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a copyright expert, but it depends on how it is done. I have uploaded this picture to Commons, which does feature game boxes, but where anything other than simple text logos is not the focus of the picture and would be considered de minimis.--Alexandra^IDV 10:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The loading screen image's description claims the copyrighted parts are de minimis, but I'm uncertain - the loading screen looks to easily be the main focus of the image.
One alternative would be to have a fair use photo of this glitch hole, followed by a commentary on it. Thoughts? Gerald WL 10:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This would probably work.--Alexandra^IDV 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra IDV, changed it there. See what you think. Regarding the size, that'll be managed by the bot. Gerald WL 11:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good.--Alexandra^IDV 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The staff are only mentioned in the infobox, and are unsourced
Alexandra IDV, I found primary sources for 3 parameters, but haven't found those for the director, programmer and artist. I'll try search for the rest. As for the other remaining parameters, they're covered in the article body and thus don't need to be cited in the box. Gerald WL 13:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

A virtual reality (VR) version was released in December 2020, making it the first in the series to get a VR release. - is this a separate version or is it a mode in the main game?
It's a separate. I think it's already clear, don't see where it causes confusion.
Cool, no problems then. I was just checking.--Alexandra^IDV 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to link Earth, we can expect readers to know what it means
Delinked.
On the other hand, it would be good to write out artificial intelligence (AI) the first time AI is mentioned
Done.
The idea of a new Microsoft Flight Simulator game is concerted amid the long absence of updates on the series, - what does this mean?
I've removed them and tweaked the lead. Not really lead-worthy, I'll give it all up to the Development section.
with it being cited as the "safest way to travel" during the COVID-19 pandemic. second clause in a row that begins with "with"
Tweaked.

General/structure

I would move the gameplay section up to the top, so the first thing a reader reads after the lead is an explanation of what you even do in this; this added context makes it easier to take in and understand the rest
Done, see what you think about it.
Looks good--Alexandra^IDV 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would also rename "overview" to "technology"
Not done for now-- I think of "Technology" as weirdly new. I think "Overview" is already fine and accurate.
"Overview" comes across to me as if it were a summary of the entire topic (ie the same thing as the lead). What do you mean by "weirdly new"?--Alexandra^IDV 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Changed.
"Popular destinations" is not exactly an explanation of gameplay... I'm unsure what the best way to handle it would be, but it does not fit where it is right now. Maybe as a sub-section of reception?
Done, see what you think about it.
- Yeah, I think it fits better there.--Alexandra^IDV 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, "features" is part of gameplay
Done, see what you think about it.
Cool, looks good.--Alexandra^IDV 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's some overlinking going on throughout the article - we can safely expect that readers will be familiar with bushes, the moon, the sun, grass, buildings, names of nations, etc
Delinked spotted overlinks.
Thank you. I do consider compass, cube, Wales, England,Scotland, Northern Ireland, helicopters, China and Swiss unnecessary to link as well.--Alexandra^IDV 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for spotting! Delinked them. Gerald WL 11:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Try to begin sections with a topic sentence introducing what you are about to talk about: for a gameplay section, a typical topic sentence would begin "Microsoft Flight Simulator is a flight simulator in which players..."; for a development section, "Microsoft Flight Simulator was developed by..."
I gave it a try, see what you think.
Looks good. The gameplay section still does not have one, though, and just launches straight into describing the game's tutorial.--Alexandra^IDV 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra IDV, adjusted it. Gerald WL 07:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overview (suggested "Technology")

A lot of technical information here - the phrase "hit by a wall of text" comes to mind. Keep in mind that we should aim to write for general audiences, and try to break long paragraphs up (the first one particularly is quite long) and to gather thematically related paragraphs under sub-headings.
I tried basic-ing some stuff, but felt like everything's already clear.
Like in the lead, please introduce the acronym AI and link artificial intelligence the first time it is used in the article
Done.

Reception

You cite a lot of different aggregators that all say about the same thing; I would just use Metacritic (the industry standard), and use that as the topic sentence for this section.
Removed the last three (is it?) and kept MC and OC.
Try to avoid quotes from reviews whenever possible, and paraphrase instead: by doing so you will both avoid copyright infringement concerns and achieve a better reading experience
See below.
You still use a lot of quotes, almost all of which can be paraphrased. In just "a matter of weeks," there had been over 1 million users playing the game can be changed to Within the first few weeks of release, over one million people had played the game; who called it the most authentic game "in the history of video games" can be changed to who found its authenticity unprecedented. The use of the Manjoo quote is of particular concern from a copyright standpoint considering how lengthy it is.--Alexandra^IDV 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Implemented the suggested changes. I paraphrased the NYT thing a bit, but kept the last few fragments as I think that's my limit there. Gerald WL 07:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest giving Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections a read - this section has a lot of "A said X. B said Y. C said Z." going on, which makes for a dull and "choppy" reading experience. Instead, try to sum up what the critical consensus is by grouping together several reviewer opinions in one sentence ("Reviewers frequently praised so-and-so aspect[1][2][3]") along with examples and counter-examples.
Surprisingly, done! Or at least. I've tweaked it so the structure is: The common reason of why the game is praised --> Lists where the game is listed --> Mainstream media thoughts --> Accuracy experiment. Does it look good now?
I'll take a look at this later (hopefully tonight), please remind me if I haven't returned after a while.--Alexandra^IDV 11:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the rewrites required when paraphrasing the quotes, I will wait with commenting on specific wording in this section until that is done.--Alexandra^IDV 17:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Alexandra^IDV 00:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

Going to take a more in-depth look at the gameplay section now that some structural changes have been made. Basing my comments on this revision.
Each sequences - "Each sequence"
Done.
famous and dangerous airports. - this really makes me wonder what makes those airports "dangerous"
Airports are dangerous because of the location. Lukla is one example. Airports are not dangerous because of anything other than that, so I don't think elaboration is needed.
Grades of a player depends on how center they are to the runway, "The player is graded based on how centered they are on the runway,"
Done.
Developer Asobo Studio also announced three "sight-seeing bush trips, which include overflights of Nevada, Patagonia, and the Balkans."[5] - the wording of this comes across as being about development rather than gameplay. Would reword to be focused on the play rather than the announcement/development, and also paraphrase - there's no reason to do direct quotes for this kind of stuff. Also.... is this considered one of the challenges? It comes across that way to me but I'm uncertain.
That's outdated-- it has been added to the product. I've tweaked and changed the cite to the guidebook.
This feature is not available on challenges - "during challenges"
Done.
Flight Simulator also allows players to search for faunas in the game, either by searching "fauna" on the World Map, - would suggest rewording to avoid repetition of searching for fauna. Sounds kind of funny to say that one of the ways to search for fauna is to search for fauna.
Tweaked one of the fauna.
At the gameplay screen, features a toolbar, - I think you're missing a word or two here.
Tweaked.
A physical, purchasable device is TrackIR, an infrared peripheral that "tracks user’s head movements inside the cockpit." - this quote should also be paraphrased. Would also try to change the sentence around - "A device is TrackIR" reads rather poorly to me, compared to something like "Players can use TrackIR, a real-world infrared peripheral..."
Done.
Some further paraphrasable quotes under Features
Done, I guess?
The Twinfinite bit belongs under reception, not here... but Twinfinite is also an unreliable source according to WP:VG/RS that should not be used on WP, so just remove it entirely instead.
Ah, thanks for spotting! Removed it.
Alexandra IDV, resolved your comments. Gerald WL 06:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will be back with more later.--Alexandra^IDV 17:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception, again

So I did some CE to the reception, and I think it mostly looks good. There are some issues that I noticed though:
The Fiorella piece seems almost pointless, or at least given too much space - he speculates that it might be useful, then it immediately turns out not to be.
I tweaked it to make some more sense. Gerald WL 16:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Steam Awards are voted on by users, and we typically do not cover user-generated material (including these types of awards) unless we're citing a reliable source reporting on the award. If you can find one for the Steam Awards (unaffiliated with Steam), you should cite that instead of the Steam Awards directly; otherwise this should be removed from the article.
Alexandra IDV, I have Game Crate, however VGRS rates it Situational, so I'm kinda anxious bout citing this. If unreliable, Indonesian online newspaper Detik.com covers it; they are a source with editorial oversight. What do you think? Gerald WL 16:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would also rather not use Game Crate; the WPVG consensus seems to be that we should limit use of it to individual authors with experience writing for other RSs, and in addition to that, the site blocks readers located in the European Union from accessing it (probably due to privacy laws), which is a major problem. I'm not familiar with Detik, but it seems like an okay replacement.--Alexandra^IDV 14:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Gerald WL 05:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You cite Ladbible, which was discussed at the RS noticeboard last year as a source that "ought to be systematically removed".
I'll fix this later; as I remember one other source calls it the best-looking; if I find it I'll replace.
Done -- changed to Le Monde. Gerald WL 07:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra IDV, also, at the reception section you wrote the word "ound". Is that a correct word? Cause I can't seem to find it in Merriam Webster or Cambridge. Gerald WL 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is of course meant to be "found". Fixed.--Alexandra^IDV 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

So let's get to the references. I'll just go down the list and see what we have here. I'll just skip over undisputed RSs and mention anything that stands out.
1–3, 10, 36, 44, 59: primary sources, but used for non-controversial detail - should be fine, but if you can find RSs covering the same thing those would be preferable.
5: I'm unfamiliar with Game Pressure, and it has not been discussed at WP:VG/RS - do we know if this is usable?
That's a good point. They are an encyclopedia owned by Webedia, which also owns Jeuxvideo.com and IGN, which are reliable sources, so I think they know what they're doing. However if you strongly feel, I can switch them to cite-vg.
8: While you can cite the text in a game, you cannot cite the gameplay itself, and if you are citing text, please specify where in the game that is found. If possible, try to replace this with an RS.
Alexandra IDV, is this regarding cite 9? If so, I've removed it as a trivia. Gerald WL 11:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11: Is FSElite reliable? Their about page calls themselves "enthusiasts", which is a bad sign when it comes to WP reliability, signaling that it is more of a fan site than anything.
Can't find an RS for the claim. Removed.
14–15: Unfamiliar with Fly Away Simulation but willing to accept it based on their about page.
21: Same for 3D Natives
22: Same for TweakTown. Be prepared to explain how these sites are RSs though if you try to take this article to GA or FA.
24: WP:VG/RS considers SixthAxis to be unreliable.
Replaced with a PCMag source.
25: Flightline Weekly looks amateurish, and the about page gives off fan site vibes. This is unlikely to hold up as a reliable source.
Replaced with a Eurogamer and TechCrunch source. Gerald WL 11:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
27: Unfamiliar with CDRinfo, and the about page is pretty bare bones. Unsure if this is usable.
It's also a generic claim, on how the plane can feel drag (I mean, previous sims do too). The claim on aircraft correctly detecting weather-- thus able to account rain on windows when it's raining-- is stated in the below paragraph, with citation to PCMag. Removed. Alexandra IDV, is that all this references review resolved? Gerald WL 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider it resolved, yes.--Alexandra^IDV 23:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
30: Unfamiliar with HeliSimmer, and the about page does not give much to go on to determine reliability. Unsure about this one.
It also merely states a statement repeated below, so I've removed it.
33: Was unfamiliar with AusGamers, but looks okay
34, 61: Was unfamiliar with PC Invasion, but seems to have experienced staff.
35: WP:VG/RS considers DSOGaming unreliable.
Replaced with two sources.
45: Unfamiliar with SportsGaming, and their about page leaves a lot to be desired. Comes off as a fan site.
Also a contradictory claim: Asobo did not use Forza's engine. Removed.
58: Essentially Sports looks like an enthusiast site more than anything based on their about and staff pages
The update is planned for 5 days from now to be released, so I'll just wait for official observations from RSes on the D-day and remove it. Will store the sentence here for future reference: Also including Wales, England, and Scotland, and with Northern Ireland ambitioned, it will handcraft airports like Land's End, Liverpool EGGP, and Manchester Barton, as well as new challenges and "a brand new flight."
60, 63: MSPoweruser calls itself a blog, and doesn't give us much else to go on... Probably not an RS.
I changed one of the cites to PC Gamer. I'll look into the other later on.
Alexandra IDV, will this primary source be a good replacement for the remaining MSPU citation? Gerald WL 06:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine.--Alexandra^IDV 14:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra IDV, done! Are all your citation comments resolved? Gerald WL 15:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I see Flightline Weekly is still used, but I think you handled everything else.--Alexandra^IDV 15:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that one, alongside CDRinfo. I'll look into this now. Gerald WL 15:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
62: GamePlayerr looks like it's just somebody's wordpress blog, with no about page. Unlikely to be an RS.
Changed to a PC Gamer site as stated above.
86: Steam Awards, like I mentioned above, are user-generated - we would need to find an RS covering them to include them in this article
See high above.
88: OpenCritic has come up several times at WP:VG, and there is yet to be consensus for its inclusion in articles. You may face pushback on this one if you take the article to GA/FA.
I don't think it'll be that disputable. MCV/Develop called it a "rival of Metacritic", and I think there are no flaws with the aggregation, per their FAQ. Ready to face GA reviewer if they bring this up.
92: As mentioned above, LADBible does not seem usable
See high above.
99: Forbes has staff, and contributors - the former is reliable, the latter is self-published.
Removed, sadly. Paul Tass--
103: Unfamiliar with TechPowerUp, and the way all their staff uses online aliases - the editor-in-chief is just credited as "W1zzard" - does not instill confidence. Unlikely to be an RS.
Replaced with a Eurogamer source, which also quotes the PC source, so only one citation is needed, thus saving space. Gerald WL 06:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Alexandra^IDV 15:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw Alexandra IDV, should articles have a consistent English variant? I know many advocate for consistency, but is it required? Gerald WL 07:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - see WP:ENGVAR for information on this from the manual of style.--Alexandra^IDV 21:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made it consistent to Australian English (w/ Oxford). Gerald WL 06:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair - this is a French game, so no strong ties to any specific variety of English - but do keep in mind that in Australian English (and commonwealth English in general), dates are formatted like "26 January 2021" rather than "January 26, 2021". You can automatically change all the dates in the references by adding the template {{Use dmy dates}} to the top of the article, but you will have to manually convert any other dates (in the article body, lead, and infobox).--Alexandra^IDV 15:52, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting! I think I've made it all dmy. Gerald WL 15:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra IDV, now that I think of it, I think this article fits more on Canadian English. It is a French game, in which Canada is predominant of, plus Canada is close to USA where it's published at which makes a stronger tie. Many sources use MDY, and with DMY I feel like the article lost its touch, if you know what I mean. What do you think? Gerald WL 03:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that's fine if you want to do that, but I wouldn't say that this game has particularly strong ties to any variety of English. "French company, French is spoken in Canada, therefore Canadian English" is a very weak link.--Alexandra^IDV 03:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you think abou--- ah whatever I've changed it. I'll probably be requesting GOCE after this PR to make it more consistent to Canadian. Gerald WL 05:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra IDV, got any more comments? Thanks for this whole reference check btw, it really helps! Gerald WL 04:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll scan over the whole article again sometime this weekend, please remind me if I haven't replied yet by Monday.--Alexandra^IDV 05:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(looking at it rn)--Alexandra^IDV 02:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, and preceded by Microsoft Flight Simulator X, released in 2006 can be simplified to "...by Microsoft Flight Simulator X in 2006" to avoid having more clauses than necessary
Done
both in the lead and the reception section, you say players often visit their houses, but the source says their homes, which is not exactly the same thing.
Changed.
in gameplay, the sentence Each sequence of the tutorial teaches different things, for example, the fourth sequence teaches how to land. feels kind of obvious - that's how a tutorial normally works. I would probably just remove it.
Removed.
since Westbrook is the only voice actor mentioned here, I would simplify the sentence structure by removing the parentheses - Throughout the tutorial, players are assisted by fictional pilot Captain Jess Molina, voiced by Marie Westbrook.
Done.
A gameplay screenshot would be more helpful this early on than a score screen (I would argue that there is little about the score screen that cannot be adequately described with text - and we only use non-free content when they significantly contribute to a reader's understanding, or the lack thereof would be detrimental to the understanding)
I'll search for a screenshot. Disappointed that I don't have a copy-- if I had one I'd play it immediately and find something to screenshot.

Alexandra IDV, one idea would be to have this YouTube video screenshot at minute 7-something. It features the cockpit interior, the taxi waypoint feature, and subtitles. Does it sound good? Gerald WL 06:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that seems fine.--Alexandra^IDV 06:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Gerald WL 06:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike its antecedents, Flight Simulator's default version features no animations or depictions of mayhem when an aircraft crashes - what do you mean by "default version" here? What is it being contrasted with? If it's compared to user-made mods, we don't need to be making that comparison; if it's something official, we should explicitly mention what.
Removed fragment as vague, also not supported by source.
In addition, there are also weather add-ons - you don't need both "in addition" and "also"
Done.
Sarah Bond, who's our head of global partnerships, came out, did the Game Pass work with the indie montage and all those games that were coming to Game Pass, then announced Xbox Game Pass for PC and Xbox Game Pass Ultimate. The next games that were there—I didn't know if the PC community was going to be watching or not, but we went Flight Sim, we went Age, we went Wasteland—I wanted people to know that we want to make sure we're building games and supporting games that respect what the PC community loves. is a rather long quote that should be re-written in your own words. It is almost immediately followed by another one, and then yet another in the next paragraph. These should also be re-written - overuse of quotes can be a copyright problem.
I did a little bit of paraphrase, but that seems to be my limit towards that statement.
Sometime after its unveiling in E3 2019, Microsoft organized an Insider Program, where members can get access - I'm assuming this is no longer available? If so, everything relating to this should be re-written in past tense.
Past-tensed.
I do again note that the non-free picture of the game box is in there - I do not believe there is sufficient reason to include this type of image only to illustrate that a physical release exists.
I'll look through this soon. Probably after its X/S release, there could be a replacement.
Chad Sapieha of CSM gave it a solid five stars, - you do not need to mention individual reviewers' review scores in the prose, since you also have a review table.
Removed that statement; placed the rating at the table.
That's what I caught on this read-through. After you have addressed the above, I'm considering this review done.--Alexandra^IDV 03:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini

It'd be cool if it was the scholar checking the prose, but nope, just me. If I don't have comments before the near future (whatever you consider that to be), then ping me. P anini ^🥪 11:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking this up! And welcome to another episode of Coincidence? I don't think so. Gerald WL 11:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning on bringing this to FAC? If so, be sure to add this to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to hopefully get more attention. Yes, I plan to get to this... eventually. P anini ^🥪 18:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I don't. I plan to bring this to GAN sometime after its Series X/S release, then FAC maybe sometime in the future. Startin' off slow. Gerald WL 02:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panini!, I set the "near future" to Tuesday UTC7, corresponding with Alexandra's. So yeah... I just... did a ping. Gerald WL 02:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just off to bed, sadly (it's EST where I'm at). I'll hopefully get this done first thing in the morning, so I'll leave a tab open. P anini ^🥪 02:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting! Gerald WL 02:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here I am. I'll publish each portion of the review so you can work on changes while I'm here instead of uploading them all at once.

Infobox

Are Youtube videos the best way you can cite this stuff?
They are not covered by RSes. I believe a primary source is already fine; if editors have an RS that supports it, that's greatly appreciated.
Although directors, designers, etc. are cited, Alain Guyet and Patrice Bourroncle aren't. Look around for sources, and you can cite the game's credits if no other option is available.
I am on the hunt for them. Sadly I don't have the game, and I can't seem to find anyone on the Internet screenshooting the credits, if there are even one. Another option would be to look through the article's history and spot who included the info, then ask them. Whatever choice is best, this will take time.
If this is an amateur flight simulator, then why doesn't it only say flight simulator in the lead?
Thanks for spotting that! I've put "amateur" in it. Small detail not everyone can see.

Lead

"It is an entry in the Microsoft Flight Simulator series, which was first released in 1982, and preceded by Microsoft Flight Simulator X in 2006." Reads a little clunky to me. Maybe, "It's an entry in the Microsoft Flight Simulator series, which began in 1982 and preceded by Microsoft Flight Simulator X in 2006."
Did the suggestion, with a twist-- I added comma after 1982, just to not make it seem as if the series is preceded by FSX; it is of course not.
The lead lists out the entire release date, namely August 18, 2020, and December 22, 2020. However, this is cited in the infobox, so an exact release date is not necessary. Therefore, you can simply do August 2020 and "December the same year".
Done-- I've also reordered the paragraph to make of a more natural flow of reading.
"The game is a comeback of the series after a 14-year absence, with developments beginning six years prior to release." This would make more sense after the "preceded by Microsoft Flight Simulator X in 2006" part of the lead.
Tweaked.

Gameplay

"voiced by Marie Westbrook" Isn't necessary to gameplay, which is what this sections covers. You could move this bbit to development if you want to keep it in.
I've footnoted it; placing it in Development would make things awkward
"It also has several helper features." This would be better with a colon or a semicolon.
Done.
I would link Fauna.
Done.
Half of the third paragraph is a list of stuff you can do in the plane. However, this ends with etc., meaning these are examples and we don't need that many examples. I'd cut this list by half, and then combine this paragraph with the second one.
I combined the paragraph, and cut some of the stuff that is basic-- those that are also something available on other simulators.
"There is also a compass at the top left," top left of what? I would put "of the screen".
Tweaked.
"making belly landings anti-climactic." This is something along the lines of a review. It would benefit without this, in my opinion.
Removed. I'll probably try to incorporate this to the Reception section.

Features

"with the Deluxe and Premium Deluxe edition also having 5 and 10 additional airplanes, respectively." I'd remove the comma.
I find the comma to be useful. Various FAs like The Grand Budapest Hotel also utilize such comma preceding "respectively".
"Most of the aircraft are of American, French, or German origin, with a few coming from Austrian, Czech, and Slovenian companies." Unless this notable among reviews or something, I wouldn't prefer to include this because it doesn't amount to much.
What do you mean by "edited" in the second paragraph?
I think it means exactly what it sounds like. It is manually edited; though not as detailed as the handcrafted ones.
"with the Standard, Deluxe, and Premium Deluxe edition respectively also including 30, 35, or 40, respectively," Respectively is repeated twice here.
Removed.
"Airports included starting from the deluxe version include" include is repeated twice here.
Removed.
"The game's team has stated that they "welcome [all third party developers] onboard," and that they are "critically important." To simplify things, Asobo has created an in-game marketplace tab featuring a variety of third-party content." Wouldn't this make more sense in development?

Development

Why is head of global partnerships in quotations?
Removed.
"Sarah Bond worked on the Game Pass work" work is repeated twice here.
Removed.
"The next games that were there..." this sentence dives into a quote without any info on who is saying it.
Removed that fragment.
I'd like indie
???
Oh, sorry, link. P anini ^🥪 15:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Liked~~ linked.
The second paragraph uses a lot of quotes. Is this the best way to explain these claims? As in, is it so easy to read that it doesn't need any paraphrasing?
Paraphrased it a little bit more.
I wildly dislike parenthesis in Wikipedia articles. Because of this, I'm suggesting that "(an era wherein the amount of pilots are decreasing)" be changed to "—an era wherein the amount of pilots are decreasing—"
Done.

According to Grammarly, "amount" should be changed to "number".

Done. I don't know why Grammarly isn't working on Wikipedia editor interface, but thanks for spotting.
Much like above, almost the entire third paragraph is a quote. Is there no better way to paraphrase this?
I prefer the current. It makes the section more humanly.
I like to organize my development paragraphs as "timeline of development first, then design choices after." Because of this, I suggest moving the fourth paragraph to the second paragraph spot.
"To record cockpit sounds, a small portable rig is used to be..." Change "is" to "was"
Done.
I put a "Release" subheader in development for easier navigation. If you see a reason to remove it, I don't mind.

Whoops, I'm looking at these sections one piece at a time and didn't notice there already is a release section. With that in mind, I'd move these paragraphs down.

Release

I'm not sure what this first paragraph has to do with release; I would either move it up to development or name this section "Testing and release".
Done.
(listed in section "Features") I have never seen any article do this ever, and not only video games, so I'd remove this.
Done.

I accidentally deleted my reception comments and now I want to die. Continuing...

Aggregation and sales

"Microsoft Flight Simulator received "universal acclaim" from critics, according to review aggregator Metacritic, with an overall score of 91 out of 100, based on 66 reviews, and is rated the third-best PC game of 2020, behind Half-Life: Alyx and Hades, as well as the tenth most discussed game." This is the longest run-on sentence I've ever seen. Please split this up.
I don't think there's readability problems, but have split it nonetheless.

Critical response

"Reviewers considered the graphics and realism of Flight Simulator as the reason of why it stands out, with 80 LEVEL and Common Sense Media (CSM) describing its authenticity as unprecedented." This combines two reviews and is a really good thing. The rest of this section tediously lists out every review in its own section, so I'd like to see more of this "combining reviews into one sentence" thing. Instead of going "Polygon said this" and "USGamer said that", you can go "Critics said this".
Credit Alexandra IDV for that. I'll try copyedit it more per WP:RECEPTION.

General criticism

I don't think the average non-gamer would know what "overhyped" means.
It's registered in Merriam-Webster, so I don't think it's a jargon.

Popular destinations

The last sentence/paragraph can be combined with the one above.
The one above is about tornado, so it would be awkward to place it there.
And yes, this is all I have to say about these sections. Good Job!
This somehow cheers me up.

There you have it. And yes, I skipped "Technology" because my brain hurts right now. P anini ^🥪 15:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I bet a lot did.

Comments from OceanHok

I have left some comments last time, so I don't intend to do a full review.

I just want to say that section title "General criticism" seems a bit WP:UNDUE for a game that scores 91/100.
See below.
This criticism section is almost as long as the actual critical reception section, which is also a bit undue. A lot can be trimmed significantly. For instance, I don't think the press' remarks on content manager are worth noting at all. I would summarize the part about misrendering landmarks in one or two sentences instead of having one long paragraph. OceanHok (talk) 14:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try trimming it, as you said, it is 91/100 and the '09 can't be as long. Gerald WL 02:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]