Talk:Freelancer (video game)/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Shockingly passed GA over a year and a half ago, this article is way below GA standards. Its two main problems to it are:

Too many Citations needed! I think I lost count on 10 or 11.
The other reason is the article's wording. I had problem reading the article and I wonder if some sentences are nessessary, but I could be wrong on this.

I will give this article 8 days or I'll delist it. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have no idea who the original nominator was; I'd just use PageStats to find the top three or so contributors and if they're still active ping them. You're going to have to be more specific to the issues with the prose, but looking back at the version I passed it seems like almost all those {{fact}} tags were accounted for by specific refs; I wouldn't reinsert them however, because I'm not sure if there was some sort of issue (most appear to be reliable on first glance, but I cannae vouch for any of them.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I told User:Jappalang, the nominator, about this on his/hers talk page. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... there were no [citation required]s when the article was passed as a GA.[1] Now what happened later was that as time passed and I got further into Wikipedia policies (especially at WP:VG/S), I realised several of the sources I used were less than reliable... I went back to a couple of my old articles and removed those unreliable sources; hence the [citation required]s here. Later, I suffered a sort of VG burnout as I keep running into "fans who insist their favorite mods should be included, without reliable third-party sourcing", "those who think they must keep the game alive", and those who "politely" insist on introducing biased elements without reliable sources or with undue weightage—edit-war and get blocked/banned is the likely result you get with civil POV pushers unless you get substantial backing—also the NG article was pretty full of what I later realised were trivial stuff (several announcements of delay and marketing tactics??!! What is the point...), thus my abandonment of Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game). Lesser known historical and non-entertainment articles were more joyful to work on, and I did not bother to replace those citations I have removed here.

There is also another reason I stopped fixing this article. Like GamerPro64 said, some of the prose is... bad (this is after I have managed to get some FAs and read through many other FAs). It could do with some refining and sprucing up. Unfortunately, that would take some time. The [citation required]s can be removed or backed up with other sources, but would also take a bit of time (much less than the rewriting but still more than a day or two). I would not begrudge anyone if this article is delisted from the GAs, but if you could spare a week (and see if I possibly get the motivation to fix the stuff here or if someone wants to take a hack at it), that would be very much appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang- I'll give the article a copy edit if you think the article is salvageable. My hands full with other things though, so I'm afraid I can't help with the sourcing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I just tried to fix up the Gameplay section. I would appreciate it if there is feedback (from GamerPro64 and others) if this is an improvement and would start the way to resolve the prose issues. @Guyinblack25: the article can be salvaged; I will try to sort some of the issues out first. I will contact you if I lack the time to complete the task. Jappalang (talk) 14:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I must say, I looked at the differences and you have done great work to it so far. It might help the prose issues, but I'm not sure. Keep up the good work. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, did some work on the Story section; that leaves the Development and Reception. Keep up with the comments; our objective is to write video game articles that are accessible to both gamers (hardcore and casual) and non-gamers alike, so any difficulty in comprehending the text are possible issues. Jappalang (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brushed up the Development section: initially it was entirely in chronological order, which for a history article would be fine, but in my opinion makes a video game article look to be steeped in trivia (release here, delay there, do this, do that). Thus, I reorganize a tad towards a thematic scheme, reducing a bit of redundancies. I would really appreciate feedback on this version compared to the old one: is the thematic approach or the chrnological better (I can just try to fix the prose for chronological version if the latter is the choice)? Jappalang (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking pretty good so far. I did some copy edits and have some questions that came to mind while reading.

I think the second paragraph can be condensed some. Maybe a stupid question, but are all the "planets and space stations" are located within the star systems visited?. If that's the case how about this: "The game allows players to pilot a starfighter and visit planets and space stations in (several or EXACT #) star systems. They can engage in combat with other starfighters to protect traders or engage in piracy themselves, look for jobs, and engage in commodity trade."
"Information boxes for data, such as targeting, communications, and navigation, can be minimised."
This implies that they are displayed by default, but neglects the fact in my opinion. Perhaps this instead? "Data related to targeting, communications, and navigation is displayed in on-screen information boxes which can be minimsed."
This sounds off to me, can't put my finger on it though. "By clicking on certain objects, the player makes the pilot interact with them by moving to other locations, talking to other characters or trading with merchants."
I get why it's here, but this sentence sounds out of place to me. Probably better for the reception section. "The Freelancer world is described as dynamic and full of life."
Some clarification wouldn't hurt here, unless there are in-games roles which lack a definite name. "...trader, pirate, bounty hunter, or any other desired role."
"Among" or "between", because the two would convey different meaning here. "Each faction has its own agenda, and the relationship among them..." If it's "among", "relationship" should be plural.

I'll try to read the Development and Reception sections tomorrow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Took a stab at all the above, except for the first point (please have a look)—not exactly sure which "second paragraph" you are talking about, but not all planets can be visited. Anyway, I re-inserted the "Published in 2003 for the Windows platform, ..." to open Gameplay as without this statement, one would be lost with regards to context when considering the main body as separate from the lede. Removed some statements in Reception—will continue later on in time. Jappalang (talk) 05:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the confusion, second paragraph in the lead.

In regard to this sentence:

"Players take up the roles of pilots who fly single-seat spacecraft (starfighters), trading with merchants on space stations and planets, and engaging in combat against other spacecraft."

I think I understand the sentence structure now. The reason I changed it was because the comma after "planets" gives it the appearance of a list of actions. With the first verb ("fly") in one tense and the other two ("trading" and "engaging") in a different tense, the list is grammatically incorrect. However, I believe you're just trying to expand on the role of the pilot rather than make a list of actions the pilots do. The issue is that the portion after "spacecraft (starfighters)" is very long and tries to include too much info. I would either change the verb tense to avoid the confusion or split off the trading and engaging part into a new sentence.

I just saw how long the reception section is. It's a monster wall of section. Without reading it, my gut reaction is to say trim it. But I'll give it a read first, before sticking with that thought. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I gave the "Development" section a sweep. Feel free to question any of the changes I made, as I hope I didn't lose the intended meaning of the content. The only thing that stood out to me was the image doesn't really tie into the content. May I suggest using a caption similar to Marble Madness#Development. I'll give the last section a sweep either tomorrow or over the weekend. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I tweaked the caption a little. I do not plan to go over the lede until Reception has been revised. I have some plans for the section but I am not certain I have time to work on it over the weekend (perhaps by next mid-week?)... Jappalang (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say this, but I think the whole "Reception" needs a rewrite. It is quite informative, but the content is presented almost like a game review, rather than a encyclopedic recap of game reviews. Overall, I think the things to remember are other people's word should be attributed and recurring comments from different reviewers can be paraphrased/condensed to provide more of an overview.

I'd say this section is the last hurdle to worry about. Once it's been revised, I think the GAR should finish with a "keep". Keep up the good work Jappalang. ((Guyinblack25 ^talk) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, I have rewritten the Reception, moving some information from Development. The section is now focused more on the reception toward the bigger features/issues mentioned throughout the article, instead of meandering into smaller stuff. Tweaked the lede as well. Please provide feedback. Jappalang (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A vast improvement. My only comment is that the second paragraph could use more attribution to comments. The other paragraphs in the section do a much better job than before. I'd say a few more tweaks and the GAR can close. Good work Jappalang. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Is this sufficient? Jappalang (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still room for improvement, but I think it gets the job done.

In my opinion, the article is much better and easily satisfies the prose criteria for GA. Let's see what GamerPro thinks. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

References are great. NO citation needed. And Gib, you're right. The prose looks way better. So, I will keep its GA status. Also, with more work, this could be a FA. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]