Jump to content

Talk:All Ghillied Up

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GAN Prep

[edit]

After realising that this article is a GAN and as the primary author of the article, I thought I would mention more sourcing to expand the article, though I do not know if I will have time to do this myself before the review. Firstly, the intial reception only includes one review. I did dig through some more reviews however I was unable to find another mention of the level. Though, I am certain it was mentioned in some more reviews that I did not get time to look over. Another source which could added is this [5] YouTube video. Yes I am aware YouTube is generally unreliable as it is a WP:SPS however this video contains direct interviews with Alavi and the design leads which can be helpful to expand the development section. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I used Youtube as a source once in a good article, so I would encourage adding it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I will try to add it parts to the development section if I get the time. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns on this article's notability

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I feel this page doesn't meet WP:N, not even close. Lots of this article is just cruft and the writing is very stretched to make it look like there's a lot of meat here on the surface. A total of 23 sources are used here, and the only ones that actually offer significant, in-depth, independent coverage are Kotaku and Official PlayStation Magazine UK. The rest of it is just passing mentions that don't constitute significance:

  • PC Gamer — A single passing mention that offers no critical commentary. Nothing significant or in-depth.
  • IGN — Listicle, has a single paragraph on it. Not significant or in-depth.
  • Ars Technica — There's a paragraph dedicated to it, but it's talking more about the remaster than the level itself. Not significant or in-depth enough.
  • Digital Trends — A passing mention in an announcement that is for the remaster. Announcements do not help establish notability.
  • Game Revolution — Not even about the level, just how to unlock the suit that is based on it. It has, at most, a sentence or two on the level itself. Not significant.
  • The Telegraph — Another listicle with only a few sentences relating to the level. Not significant enough.
  • Digital Spy — Yet another listicle that only has a few sentences related to it. Not significant enough.
  • Techspot — Not sure about its reliability since it isn't listed at WP:VG/S. Even if it was, the article is not about the level and it is only mentioned twice in passing. Not at all in-depth or significant.
  • GamesRadar+ — Article, while long, isn't even about All Ghillied Up, it is written for a different level entirely that compares it to AGU once or twice. Not significant or in-depth.
  • LADbible — Reader poll that doesn't offer any critical commentary on it. Not even sure this source is reliable at all.

And these are only for the Reception, I didn't bother checking the rest of the article since the reception is what matters the most. With the majority of sources here only having brief mentions of the level in question, I fail to see how this somehow meets WP:N. None of them offer anything significant and barely any actual critical analysis (just them saying "the level is good" isn't critical commentary). I can definitely see this being a useful redirect for readers, but certainly not as an entire article. I'm not proposing deletion, I am proposing a redirect. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare: This level has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. None of the provided sources are usable. ―Susmuffin Talk 00:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has to be a point where you stop and think that if 23 separate sources wrote about it, it's probably notable. Whether it has that many significant pieces of coverage doesn't matter, as long as it's sufficient to cover it indepth per GNG. There isn't an arbitrary threshold if it can sum up the entire level without missing detail - which it definitely can. The fact that there are indeed some listicles mixed in with it is WP:BATHWATER. There have been plenty of smaller articles deemed acceptable in the past, such as Dust2. This article is at least as independently notable if not moreso and played a large role in video game development going forward illustrating the potential of non-linear missions.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, GNG does not require that every source covers it to a significant degree, as long as there are enough to construct the article without lacking details. There are at least a couple that feature significant, in depth coverage, which is certainly enough. The others just add to its notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't require every single source to be sigcov, but it requires enough sigcov to justify a spinoff from the parent article. You mention Dust2, but the sources there are plentiful in their sigcov about the map's making of, developpement, history, impact, evolution, and news about Valve's handling of it. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉
  • The fact that is has been mentioned by separate people in the gaming press as "one of the best stealth missions in games" and "one of the best levels in gaming history" isn't enough to justify a spinoff discussing it? Might as well make it a referendum on all video game levels then, because if this one is insufficiently notable, then there is likely no level that is. That strikes me as ridiculous and an overbroad interpretation of GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the fact that sources mention it as "one of the best stealth missions in games" does not make a subject automatically pass English Wikipedia's inclusion threshold, which requires significant coverage, i.e. independent reliable sources publishing dedicated writing literally ABOUT the level, not mentioning it in comparison to other topics or among listicles. You can look at Dust2's depth of coverage for an example. If you find articles about other levels where you have a concern about them passing the threshold for inclusion, you should discuss these on their talk page or AfD, not here. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 00:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Which there are. You're just using an arbitrary threshold of significant coverage to argue for redirection. The sheer amount of mentions prove it is notable when combined with the significant coverage. The fact is, it's not entirely trivial mentions (although I'd argue that some of the above that are purportedly claimed as "trivial" are in fact not.)ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't really made an argument in favor or against redirection (yet), just trying to explain why your perspective that "23 sources wrote about it" is not representative of the reality of the actual sigcov about the article subject. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to its own subsection but needs a significant culling. This article is an example of what happens when you give each inconsequential opinion and quotation its own sentence. In reality it could be condensed down to "All Ghillied Up has been considered by many game journalists to be the best in the game, and several have asserted that it may be the best FPS level created." And then add 23 sources if it so warrants. The simple fact is this game received hundreds of reviews, and certain guns, certain characters, certain features, certain maps of the the game will repeatedly be mentioned in those sources. That does not grant notability to the level outside of the game. That isn't to say it couldn't gain notability, but it would require prolonged discussion over time (maybe with awards, comparison with sequels, other FPS) to establish its unique position. Koncorde (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an additional, the "No Russian" article probably warrants a tidy up to focus on what was significant about it. I am not sure it, again, is discussed naturally out of the context of the games but I can see how it's relatively controversial content and the response to to would grant more immediate notability (though long term is questionable, lots of games have controversial content but we don't spin off articles for them). Koncorde (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have a bit of a Russian nesting doll situation going on for that matter it seems, with a sub article for a sub section Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and then a sub article of that. Koncorde (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to its own subsection Agree with Koncorde, in short, as well as the general analysis of sourcing present. This should be tagged as a proposed merger. -- ferret (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep but not opposed to redirect On purely GNG lines, I think the topic can pass muster on deep review of sourcing. That said, and I think everyone who is writing these articles about fictional items, levels, etc, need to start deeply considering this, just because something can scrap by GNG and be considered notable doesn't mean it strictly needs an article, if it fits within another topic without undue weight. And GNG still allows, though we rarely exercise it and rely on "x number of sources", the ability for the community to reach a consensus that something doesn't belong as a standalone topic despite an availability of sourcing. The GAN for this article, were I to pick it up, I would still fail at this time. The Development section is woefully weak. Sourcing that helps establish GNG is not adequately used, particularly the book sources. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to its own subsection - another scenario where it’s mostly passing mentions with long-drawn out bloated prose in an attempt to justify a spinout. Another reminder that we are not a wikia. Sergecross73 msg me 02:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now, I am leaning towards weak keep. It is an iconic level from Call of Duty and it is recognised by RS (albeit in passing mention). In addition to OPM and Kotaku, I would argue that PC Gamer's coverage is also significant. There is also a 20-minute documentary that can be used to fill up the development section (but it hasn't been used in the article yet). Gamasutra also used this level to discuss game pacing,[6][7], which may be used to improve the reception section a bit better. However, I do agree with most of our editors above. The article is stretched too long, and mostly filled with cruft, and I believe that in its current state, not much is lost if it is redirected or reduced to a section. However, I believe that there is potential for this to be a standalone article. OceanHok (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stongest possible Keep. I have researched this topic at length for hours upon hours I can confidently assert that the topic does indeed meet WP:GNG. Firstly, I believe the source outline provided by Namcokid47 is an unfair and inaccurate summary of the actual coverage of the topic. I am going to go over all the source that address the topic:
  1. A dedicated article from Kotaku of the level including comaprison of the level to the real word location itself (Pripyat, Ukraine). [8].
  2. Another full in-depth, dedicated article from Kotaku of the level [9]
  3. A full in-depth article from PlayStation Official Magazine – UK [10] (Something I came across by chance when researching another topic and considering a lot of print magazine are behind paywalls and there is about 13 years of magazine produced from the level's release to today I am certain there is more coverage out there in print magazine I have not found yet).
  4. Half a page of dedicated coverage in The Art of War Video Games [11]
  5. Two pages of dedicated coverage in Playing War: Military Video Games After 9/11 [12].
  6. A dedicated article discussing the level's development from PC Gamer [13] (To call this a "A single passing mention that offers no critical commentary. Nothing significant or in-depth." is inaccurate).
  7. A sizeable amount of coverage in Official Xbox Magazine's review of CoD 4 [14].
  8. Two sizable paragraphs in PC Gamer [15]
  9. A paragragh in IGN [16]
  10. Two sizable paragraphs in Ars Technica [17]
  11. Two paragraphs in Techspot [18]
  12. Three paragraphs in Digital Spy [19]
  13. About three paragraphs in GamesRadar+ [20]
  14. There is signifcant coverage from Gamasutra (found by OceanHok) which is yet to be used in the article. In the first article there is the three paragraph discussing the topic [21]
  15. In second article there 2 pages worth is an in-depth breakdown of a 10 minute segment of the level breaking it down almost minute by minute (certainly in depth and significant) [22] [23]
  16. There is also a 20-minute documentary from the main creators of the level [24] which is not been used in the article yet (I would first have to transcribe it and then quote it once I do to use it to accurately reference it. I have also contacted the creator about possibly releasing some screenshots of the developers under a free image license).
  17. A paragraph in The Telegraph [25]
  18. There is also brief coverage throughout Digital Trends [26], GameRevolution [27], PlayStation Lifestyle [28], and Techradar [29]
  19. Additionally, LADbible voted it as the best Call of Duty mission [30] and IGN readers voted the level as the most memorable Call of Duty moment of all time [31].

Yes not every single source used is in-depth article dedicated to the entire topic at hand. But the coverage I have presented above is certainly enough for the topic to warrant its own article and meet WP:GNG. Moreover, there is likely more coverage found in print sources that I have yet been unable to find (due to it being harder to search through them by their very nature and paywalls). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LADBible and IGN reader polls need removed, as that is WP:USERG content. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, striked. Any other comments regarding my comment, Ferret? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Starting at source 9, IGN, and down is trivial mention, IGN is almost nothing. For techspot, it's almost dishonest to call that "two paragraphs" of detailed coverage. Same for Digital Spy, "3" paragraphs but half is just saying what it was, that it was 'great game design', and no other analysis. GamesRadar+ is the same, bare sentences "greatest level" with no analysis. Ars Technica is somewhat usable. The first Gamasutra isn't really helpful, but the second one is. There's a few weak sources above source 8, but the heavy sources are in that top 8. I've struck my redirect above, but I'm also still not opposed to redirecting. Call it a neutral. I left more comments above. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I will try to implement the Gamasutra and book sources more when I can get the time to help expand the article more. I just wish there was an easy way to search through a reliable print magazine archive like looking for the search term "All Ghillied Up" as more print coverage probably exists but all hard to find and behind paywalls (I found the PSM article by chance). But I will probably hold off on another side fictional element/location that I was thinking about making in to an article now at least until I can find more coverage (it was Wuhu island if you were curious). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 00:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Spy-Circle's comment above, I have a hard time understanding the argument that this subject lacks significant coverage. The most I've seen people demonstrate is that some of the sources cover multiple topics in the same article. But there are also articles entirely devoted to the subject of this article. And there are a sizable number--and certainly enough to qualify as "significant" IMHO--of articles out there addressing the subject of this article. So, for that reason, I think it should be kept. That said, if the community wants to have a discussion about enacting a bright-line policy against articles about specific in-game elements, I'd be in favor of that. I think there may be compelling reasons to draw a bright line against stand-alone articles about in-universe or in-game elements. But I don't think that the GNG are the way to address that issue, at least with respect to this particular article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per excellent source by source analysis by Spy-cicle. Haleth (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New image

[edit]

Spy-cicle I know this may seem really pedantic but I've just uploaded a slightly different version of the gameplay screenshot used as I felt it helped illustrate more what the image was trying to convey by having more soldiers in the picture. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, the re-size makes the soldier on the left almost imperceptible anyway... Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibenboy94: The reason I chose the first one since it does not have the green "Cpt. MacMillan" text which may confuse unfamiliar readers. I say what you mean about trying demonstrate more soldiers but once it is reduced hard to tell either way. Also one thing I realised is that both images have the YT uploaders watermark (maybe if I get enough time at some point I'll be able to upload an ideal screenshot no green text, clear enough soldiers, no water mark).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:All Ghillied Up/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Haleth (talk · contribs) 14:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to review this. Taking down notes, will be back with commentary soon. Haleth (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Thank you for picking this up and I look forward to comments (first time trying to write an article on a specific level, tad tricky given the limited coverage of the level unlike say No Russian). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before I get a proper review underway, I do have a question though, with regards to the broadness of its coverage. The initial reception section is very thin, with only one source cited. Outside of the ones already cited in the Call of Duty 4 article, I'm sure there are dozens upon dozens of reviews for the original game out there in the wild. Did none of them discuss All Ghillied Up in their reviews at all, even in passing? Haleth (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From memory I remember searching (using ctrl+F) through some of the reliable reviews of Call of Duty 4 (mostly those listed on the main article) and that was the only thing I sizeable part I found. However, it is possible they described/noted the level in some capacity without mentioning the name so I'll have another scan over now. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: I have greatly expanded the intial reception [32]. The reason I did not find much of it before was because hardly any of the intial sources actually state the level name. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Lede

[edit]
  • Set in Pripyat, Ukraine, in 1996, the player assumes control of then Lieutenant Price and alongside their superior Captain MacMillan must deal with enemies stealthily or overtly or avoid engaging them altogether I find the sentence a bit clunky and could use breaking up: first sentence concerning when where and who, the second sentence explaining what the mission is about.
     Done Split into two sentences: Set in Pripyat, Ukraine, in 1996, the player assumes control of then Lieutenant Price and is assisted by their superior Captain MacMillan. The player must deal with enemies stealthily or overtly or avoid engaging them altogether.
  • In that context, could you swap must to may?
  •  Done Replaced with "may"
  • It was designed by Mohammad Alavi, and is unusual for its stealth gameplay and the choices it offers the player. During development, its enemy artificial intelligence was secretly added to the game due to its unusual complexity. I suggest grouping together statements about Alavi as the level's creator, and about him being responsible for the discreet implementation of enemy AI.
     Done Have reorganised and rewrote parts of the lead. (Now the structure is: first sentence, setting and characters, level content, development then critical reception)
  • The claim "unusual for its stealth gameplay", is that Alavi's or another developer's own description of the mission, or feedback from the game's critics?
    Removed, I falied to verify the claim (iirc it is was new for the series to have steath levels but cannot find a secondary RS cite)

Level content

[edit]
  • The player proceeds to another field where they encounter a platoon with tanks advancing across it, and hide from the enemies in the foliage using their ghillie suits in prone. I don't feel the second part of the sentence connects to the statement of being outnumbered by the platform that well. I suppose you can frame the stealth mechanics as a specific in-universe response to the platoon, but from memory I am certain the duo planned the entire mission all the way to the hotel as a covert one to avoid detection. Alternatively, you may simply emphasize on the ghillie suit part and write about it generally without going into minute detail about proceeding from one node to the other.
    I see what you mean here but the reason I think this sentence is important to include is becuase critics specifically highlighted this section of the game (infobox caption, intial recception 2nd para, etc). Though decided to trim this sentence ("They proceed past further areas containing inactive tanks, helicopters and shipping units, whilst dealing with enemies.") as less noted parts of the level.
  • and in stealth crawl under a series of these vehicles A little bit "crufty" (if that can be a word) tone. Perhaps, and must crawl under a series of these vehicles to avoid detection?
     Done
  • Soon after, they traverse several buildings, encountering wild dogs, culminating in them setting up in the abandoned Polissya hotel to prepare for an assassination Instead of going into minutae, I think you can just say, they eventually reach the abandoned Polissya hotel to prepare for an assassination? Unless critics in the sources specifically discuss the last few buildings and dogs too?
     Partly done Omitted the mention of Polissya hotel (since mentioned in plot, did not want to repeat now just a generic hotel) Changed to "They eventually reach an abandoned hotel to prepare for an assassination attempt"
  • Second paragraph is entirely uncited, but it is not placed under plot. The reader may presume that it is not meant to be a plot summary and thus it is not exempt from the necessity of citations to secondary sources. Is it necessary though to put these details in a separate paragraph, when the first paragraph can be streamlined to incorporate the second paragraph's contents by trimming prose that is already duplicated under plot section?
    Okay I defintely see where you are coming from here. Could I cite parts of this second para to the game/level itself simliar to plot, since these two choices like the plot itself are entirely scripted. I do not think we have any MOS guidelines in terms of level content (unlike plot) since we have hardly any levels dedicated to specific levels (Category:Video game levels)
  • I think for the paragraph, you can cite the PC Gamer retrospective piece on the franchise's two most famous levels, since they devoted one paragraph about Captain MacMillan's behaviour and reactivity to the player's actions. Maybe emphasize on the significance of the reactivity mechanic to give context to the fact that it is a 2007 game and that kind of coding sophistication was uncommon in most other contemporary video games.
  •  Done Added part about NPC reactivity to player action using PC Gamer source (At the time of its release, the level was the first in the series where NPCs could react differently based on the players' behavior like those seem in stealth video games. This allows NPCs to react differently based on whether they can detect the player.. Also cited Kotaku article for other parts since it also discusses player choices.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 08:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]
  • Some of the details from level content are duplicated in the plot summary (for e.g. arriving in the abandoned Polissya hotel to prepare for the assassination mentioned twice, but not mentioned in the lede). Or maybe it's the other way around since it sounds like story content as opposed to gameplay/level content. It's fine for the lede to repeat some of the stuff discussed in a section since it serves as an introduction, but not between level content and plot.
     Working
  • Believe this is now  Done, tried to reduce repition between early level content paragraphs and plot section.
  • The mission ends with MacMillan and Price setting up in the abandoned Polissya hotel preparing for an assassination. -> Grammar, preparing -> to prepare?
  •  Done Added to "to prepare"
  • All Ghillied Up" introduces parallels between Captain Price and the game's main player character Soap MacTavish. How so? Unless it can be elaborated on and supplemented with character analysis from a critic's review, that point feels very random to me.
    Gotcha. Should I attribute this to Ars Technica under the plot section. Or perhaps shift it to the reception section?
  • Probably shift it to reception, since it appears to be an original analysis by the critic on the game's themes as opposed to developer commentary on what they were trying to achieve and convey.
  • Atrributed and moved to reception

Development

[edit]
  • The level was based on game mechanics used in Half-Life and Metal Gear Solid. In it, non-player characters react differently to the player based on distance and angle, rather than a simple proximity trigger. I checked the source. It says "born from study". So is it supposed to convey that Alavi copied the context-sensitive distance mechanic used in these games, or was he simply inspired by them?
    So yeah from looking at the PC Gamer sources it says "Born from study of Half-Life and the Metal Gear Solid games ...". The wording is somewhat imprecise as to whether they are talking about inspiration from other series or copying. The phrase in this instance seems to suggest the level was created or formed after Alavi studied games in those series. Thoughts on wording it something like: Alavi drew inspiration from the Half-Life and Metal Gear Solid video games series when creating the level or Alavi studied games from the Half-Life and Metal Gear Solid video games series when creating the level, plus maybe a mention of simliar gameplay mechanics?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The second one is probably a better fit, since it is a good direct paraphrase of what the source said, whereas inspired can be a bit more ambiguous.
     Done Incorporated second version
  • No need to split the paragraph I feel, since it is still about Alavi's code.
     Done merged paragraphs
  • making Alavi consider it a success. -> which Alavi considered to be a success.
     Done

Reception

[edit]
  • Many publications highlighted "All Ghillied Up" among other levels in the game. -> highlighted "All Ghillied Up" as a standout among other levels in the game?
     Done, changed
  • GameDaily's Steven Wong noted that based on whether the player is skillful enough to deal with enemies they will have different results. - GameDaily's Steven Wong noted that players will experience different outcomes depending on their skill levels?
     Done, changed
  • Burford also complimented the "incredibly tense" prone section as implementing the mechanic in an interesting way. What mechanic? Video game stealth mechanics in a general sense, or a specific mechanic innovated or popularized by the game?
     Done, I believe Burford was just talking about the mechanic of being able to go prone (I really like that incredibly tense prone section in Modern Warfare because of what it means for the game. While more recent modern military games have removed control options like lean, prone, and even jump, Modern Warfare doesn't just retain them, it actually implements them in interesting ways). Changed to "Burford also complimented the "incredibly tense" prone section as implementing the prone ability in an interesting way"
  • Fair enough, it's clearer now.
  • The publication particularly praised the pacing and level of player agency. Maybe rewrite the sentence to say, "the degree of agency the level offers players" or something along similar lines?
     Done Changed to "The publication particularly praised the pacing and the degree of agency the level offers players"
  • were a fan favourite. -> why past tense? Is it no longer a fan favorite?
     Done, changed
  • He opined that "All Ghillied Up" is Modern Warfare's best level for its tension in avoiding combat as opposed to embracing it, and calling it the "tense, thoughtful soul of the series" for its message of violence begets violence The words "for its tension" feels out of place in the sentence. Maybe a simpler sentence like "because it encourages players to avoid combat instead of embracing it"?
     Done Adjusted, split into two setences simpliying He opined that "All Ghillied Up" is Modern Warfare's best level because it encourages players to avoid combat instead of embracing it. Tyrer went on to call it the "tense, thoughtful soul of the series" for its message of violence begets violence.
  • I don't believe that citing the results of a reader's poll from a publication which has been questioned for its reliability or quality is appropriate for a GA class article.
     Done Removed.
  • This difference being if the player gets spotted in "All Ghillied Up" the game will not have a fail screen instead giving the player the chance defend against many enemy soldiers. Should break the sentence up with a comma somewhere.
     Done Added comma "fail screen"

Discussion

[edit]
No worries, and take your time. I went back to the merge discussion and noticed that other editors have brought up a few sources to support their decision to keep the standalone article, including for example, one from Gamasutra. I don't believe that they have been cited in the current version of the article. Have you reviewed the aforementioned sources before to determine whether they are relevant for inclusion? Haleth (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: I have resonded above to your comments. I have also added two more sources both from Gamasutra that appeared in the merge discussion (one of them was a case study on game pacing [33] so was a tad tricky trying to incorporate it, but there was some commentar there). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have added new comments. Just a reminder that you have not yet actioned the changes to the second paragraph of the development section. Haleth (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Working. Apologies thought I had done the development stuff but I must have accidently self-reverted due to different revisions of the article.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 08:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: Thank you very much for you comments again, I have responded/addressed to them above. Let me know if you have any more concerns or queries. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 08:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were a couple of lingering typos, and I thought the ghillie suit reference should be moved to the front of the second paragraph. I've directly addressed them since they are minor stuff. It's a pass for me. Well done and thank you for putting up with me. Haleth (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Spy-cicle: One more thing. I recommend that this Kotaku article, which is about the documentary discussing the development of "All Ghillied Up" and has an embedded YouTube video link to it, be included at the bottom of the article as an external link. Since a reliable source like Kotaku has highlighted it, it is fine for inclusion. Haleth (talk) 04:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Haleth: Great thank you very much for the thorough review of the article. I have added the external link now as well. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 11:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

    • ALT2:... that "All Ghillied Up" is considered one of the best video game levels in the first-person shooter genre? Source: The Telegraph "widely regarded as one of the greatest video game levels in the series, and of the genre as a whole" Digital Spy "We still class 'All Ghillied Up' as one of the best missions in FPS history" Digital Trends ""All Ghillied Up" level is among the greatest in any first-person shooter"

You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

  • Reviewed: Excempt, fewer than 5 nominations

Improved to Good Article status by Spy-cicle (talk). Self-nominated at 20:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hi Spy-cicle, review follows: article promoted to GA on 17 June; article is well written and cited inline throughout; I am not overly familiar with video game sourcing but the sources use appear reliable; I found no overly close paraphrasing in a spot check on the sources; hook is interesting, mentioned in the article and checks out to the source cited; nominator is QPQ exempt. Looks fine to me - Dumelow (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spy-cicle, thanks for the links. I'll bear them in mind next time I review a video game article - Dumelow (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

@Spy-cicle While I still don't agree with the Level content section in terms of highlighting lesser moments, I will accept if it was written this way during GAN; however, the prose about the "Recon By Fire" level wasn't. The usage of "strongly compared" and "numerous similarities" feels a bit excessive and less neutral for what is a brief mention in the sources that simply call it very reminiscent or a next-generation version of "All Ghillied Up". At the very least, the sources don't mention any context of the level that we have included (which I think can be assumed is similar to AGU from the comparisons), with the exception of the gameplay systems and enemy AI. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not saying using those terms in this context is overstating or excessive so many RSs compared All Ghillied Up to that level with its numerous specific simliarities. Given this I think it is fair to briefly outline it in the body.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:All_Ghillied_Up&oldid=1204712107"