Talk:Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish this by tomorrow. JAGUAR 18:20, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm leaving a comment because it said they were welcomed. In the section developments and changes, the three middle paragraphs have no citations. Can we fix this? Thanks. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two citations for the last paragraph of that section are also used for the three you mentioned, but I thought I would avoid putting copies of the citations at the end of each one. Would it be best to do so? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 1:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would be standard procedure to put copies of citations for each paragraph, as to prevent confusion. Each paragraph requires at least one citation, as a rule of thumb. If the citation covers it, it should be at the end of each specific paragraph, not just at the end of the section. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep each paragraph should have at least one citation—especially for GA. Sorry for the delay, I'll get to reviewing this now. JAGUAR 20:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

Lead

"and published by Activision" - link Activision
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and published by Activision, and is a' remastered version of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" - this could do with a split.
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - was this game released on the same date worldwide? Or was it released like a day after on another platform in another territory? If not, I would rephrase it to It was released worldwide on November 4, 2016 and also apply this in the infobox
- Comment I changed the prose but I'm having trouble editing the infobox as I don't know the code. Can you assist please? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"lighting and rendering upgrades" - link Rendering (computer graphics)
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"new and remastered sound effects" - aren't remastered sound effects technically new anyway?
- Comment When I say "new", I mean original sound effects created for the remaster/ not used in the original. Those I refer to as " remastered" are those used in both games. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've tweaked this slightly. -- ferret (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"which were now considered dated" - I think it would sound better without the "now"
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend merging the latter two paragraphs of the lead into one so that it improves presentation
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

"The multiplayer features 16 maps (10 of these maps having been released at launch)" - would it be easier to say that six maps were introduced via DLC?
- Comment The maps were released as part of a free update to the game. Would this count as DLC? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done Tweaked. -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"" Gun Game"" - space after quotation mark
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"(introduced in past Call of Duty installments)" - which game modes were introduced in past instalments? All of them or just Gun Game?
- Done -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and weapon camos" - 'camos' sounds a bit informal, how about camouflage
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"which can all be unlocked through experience points" - I thought they could be unlocked by progressing through levels?
- Comment Same thing. I think the Modern Warfare article also refers to it as experience points. To be precise however, only weapons and attachments can be unlocked by reaching a new level; everything else is available through points-- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I think this is correct. -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Pressing down on the controller's d-pad in multiplayer" - capital D needed
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

Is this section necessary? I think it can be safely removed as an empty header seems awkward and breaks the flow. Not sure if there's a policy on this somewhere
- Comment We need a link back to the original plot of the game. I'm not sure of a cleaner way to do this. It did have a short sentence stating there were no changes to the plot until recently. -- ferret (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I removed the sentence as I didn't think it was needed, and I'd also noticed in the editing screen that Ferret had warned editors not to include the entire Plot summary inside the article. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll chime in and say that I think a short paragraph on the premise of the game or a condensed plot summary is probably more beneficial than an empty section. See Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary which is a featured article and has a very short summary of the original game's plot. Wikipedia does allow readers to download .pdf version and view printable versions of articles; an empty section isn't helpful in those cases. --The1337gamer (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibenboy94, Jaguar, and The1337gamer: I've inserted a first pass summation of the original game's plot, with many details kept terse. -- ferret (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development

"The remaster runs in full 1080p resolution at 60 frames per second, and uses the same engine featured in Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare." - unsourced, needs a citation
- Comment I'd made a note of this previously. I've searched for a reliable source to cite but all I can find are forums. If it comes to it I'll just have to omit this part. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I'll be happy to overlook this part given the fact that it seems fairly obvious as most games nowadays run at 60fps/1080p on current-gen consoles. JAGUAR 20:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant I was looking for a citation for the Advanced Warfare engine, not the FPS bit. In the end I just removed details of the engine. No sign of a reliable source for this anywhere... -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Wikibenboy94. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second, third and fourth paragraphs are unsourced and will need some citations (or at least one at the end if appropriate)
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The majority of Modern Warfare was rebuilt from the ground up" - reads a bit informal. It looks like this comes from a quote, so it should be quoted
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"as "Respecting the original game and gameplay experience was incredibly important for [them]"." - I think this can be safely paraphrased
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"As Raven explained" - personifying a company/publication should usually be avoided. Does the source mention who actually said this?
- Comment No it doesn't. Could "As a Raven developer explained" be used instead? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"A developer from Raven" sounds good. JAGUAR 20:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The AI of NPC's" - write out and link artificial intelligence for unfamiliar readers, and also do the same for "Non-player characters (NPCs)"
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"New animations were added to the game to further immerse the player and enhance the "body sense" (how the camera makes use of the player character's body)" - bracket seems a bit awkward; I think it could be rephrased
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"one example Raven made note of is that" - more personification
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing

"News of Modern Warfare Remastered leaked on Reddit" - was leaked, and link Reddit
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"for the online store Target" - is this Target Australia? I'm not sure
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"as well as 10 Rare supply drops" - rare is capitalised here
- Comment I was conflicted on this but thought it to best to capitalise it as this is what the game actually refers to them as. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done I've lowercased it. While the game may capitalize it, perhaps for stylistic needs, I don't think it's treated as a proper noun. -- ferret (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I think that the reception section is slightly lacking in broadness (a key aspect of the GA criteria). Mostly notably, IGN's review is missing, and a cursory search also reveals reviews from Destructoid and Hardcore Gamer—both reliable sources per WP:VG/S. I'd recommend adding these in to cover the broadness part
- Comment Will do. I felt editing the section was difficult as there are really not that many reviews available (over 20 on Metacritic for the PS4 version), much less reviewers that are deemed reliable. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I've just realised that Hardcore Gamer's review was one that was originally included in the section anyway. Did you mean to refer to another reviewer? -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Jag may have just missed Hardcore was there. Need to get Destructoid added for sure though. -- ferret (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret and Jaguar: Reception section has been expanded, please read through it and advise if you think it needs shortening/ rearranging etc. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely missed Hardcore Gamer for some reason. I think the reception section now reads perfectly. It's definitely comprehensive enough to satisfy the GA criteria. I've done some slight paraphrasing. JAGUAR 18:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

" received "generally favorable reviews", according to review aggregator Metacritic" - no need for the comma, and link Metacritic
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove all scores from the reception section's prose and add them in the reception table. This is quite important for video game articles—especially GAs—and it also offers the readers quick access to scores themselves. If you need help with the template, just ask, or its documentation can be found at Template:Video game reviews
- Done Scores no longer in the prose, and I've added them to the review template. -- ferret (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewer from Push Square is Joey Thurmond—add his name in the prose: Joey Thurmond from Push Square praised its graphical enhancements...
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"and that "Modern Warfare Remastered celebrates this legacy" - needs italicising
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reception on could benefit from some paraphrasing as it seems to rely a bit much on quotes
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that it received an award from IGN could be mentioned as prose in the first paragraph of the reception section
- Done by Wikibenboy94. -- ferret (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret and Jaguar: I know I put it there originally, but I'm not sure now about including the paragraph on the release of new weapons in the Controversies section. The choice to add this new content has not exactly been criticised by all or most of the fan base, more about half, which is why I noted it had received a "mixed" reception. I'm also unable to find a reliable source as it mainly revolves about complaints from fans on forums or social media, rather than a written article on the topic. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps mentioning a paragraph on weapons is straying into WP:GAMECRUFT territory if it's not already covered by reliable sources, or many for that matter. I would recommend cutting down the paragraph slightly? JAGUAR 19:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've culled out the names and descriptions of the specific weapons. I think that's all we really need here. Still need to cover the release that included new weapons and had some fan backlash. -- ferret (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought Since the fan reaction is unsourced (And no reliable sourcing covered it), I would remove that sentence, then move the rest of the sourced paragraph to the Downloadable content section. -- ferret (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry why did you want the rest of the second paragraph in the DLC section? As clarified with Jag, the weapons were included as part of a free update rather than considering it as DLC. If anything, I'd move that paragraph up with the first in the Controverseries section. It would link in perfectly with Activision's claims micropayments were for cosmetic-only items. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that starts to look a bit like OR, combining Activision claims (and reaction to those claims) to the release of content (Which is not sourced to have generated controversy). Unless there's a controversy, it becomes just standard updates and DLCs. If DLC is not the appropriate place, then the end of the Development section (As its post-release development). -- ferret (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that about covers it. -- ferret (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret and Jaguar: I'm torn about whether to include in the lead section a criticism that the game's level design was seen as dated, because there doesn't seem to be many occasions where this specific fault is mentioned. This also leads to me to ask, for any praise and criticism of a game, do we include those from the reviewers who are only seen as reliable (in this case, five) or do we include (e.g. in the case for the PS4 version) all 26 critics? I did a quick Google search of those who mentioned the level design in their MWR reviews (the majority of which I'm guessing were posted to Metacritic), and there seemed to be a mix of opinion, from essentially calling it brilliant, to holding up, to feeling dated. On the other hand, of the reliable five reviews we've included in the article, only one (IGN) openly criticizes the level design, so if we're citing these few, I'm not sure it's worth mentioning. I also Googled reviews of the remasters Halo Anniversary and Gears of War Ultimate Edition, of whose Wikipedia articles both mentioned that their level design was seen as having aged, but similarly I got the gist that there were differing opinions on this. Also, two of the five reviews for MWR also mention poor pacing, but I didn't think this warranted a mention because it relates to story rather than gameplay. That and I've never seen such an criticism mentioned in a remaster article before. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely only use material from reliable sources. As for the lead, a short mention of some of the things reviewers brought up is fine, but I think the current summation in the lead works well as is. -- ferret (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought so too. Plus I didn't want the end of the lead to get too long either. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Wikibenboy94. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

I think that this is a solid article and an excellent first effort. All in all the reception section could benefit from some expansion and paraphrasing, and the development section will need more citations. I'll leave this on hold and will take another look at this once progress has been made. If you have any questions or need any help, please just ask! JAGUAR 21:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikibenboy94: This may look like a lot, but most of it are minor tweaks and improvements. Please feel free to ask for any advice or help you may need. This is a pretty typical review and you're in a good place to finish up with just a bit more work. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The work is something I'm sure I'll be able to manage on my own, but I'll notify you if I have any trouble. I've added comments to some of those improvements needed above to clarify further etc. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Believe this is getting really close, with the major sticking point being the Plot. I'm going to write a brief summary shortly. -- ferret (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Sorry for the delay in getting back to this as I've been offline for a few days. I've just checked over both the review and the article again and conclude that it now meets the GA criteria. All of the issues have been addressed; a new plot section has been added, it has been cleaned up and sourced properly, and the reception section is now up to standards. Well done on the work put into this Wikibenboy94 and ferret! JAGUAR 11:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]