Talk:Z: Steel Soldiers

Assessment

I'm sorry to say that I do not feel that this article is up to par with C-class standards. The lead is rather short, the "history" section is uncited, it lacks a development section, and the reception section is outrageously short, considering how long the chart is. The Gameplay and Plot sections are to long in comparison with the rest of the article.

Additionally, there are only six cites, five of which are located in the Reception box. That needs to be fixed as well. You need to write a development, and expand the lead. Reception needs quotes and sales data.

Also, your screenshot doesn't fit with WP:FU. The fair-use rationale requires the image to be in low-resolution, preferably not much bigger than how big it is in the article. All parameters in the Fair-Use rationale should be filled in.

Do that, and request for re-assessment.--haha169 (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject videogame assessment #2

I'd rate the article as being a comfortable C, so the rating remains the same. Here's some things to consider:

• Reading through the article I'm seeing a lot of minor but objectional examples of positive weighting. Examples include: "deft opponents" "intense battles" "rich graphics" - describe the game to readers without trying to sell them it.
• Plot - where's the rest of it? It's a pre-amble, the rest needs summarizing and citing. That's not to say a wall of text needs to be slapped in, but there's a beginning-middle-end which needs to be laid out.
• Features - there's no need for a separate heading for what is gameplay information, please get rid of this heading and stick with gameplay. The information can be integrated with that section, except the recommended PC spec - that's what the infobox is for.
• "The game comes with a profiling utility that allows users to find and set graphics options to an optimum configuration." so do countless games, this isn't needed.
• "Steel Soldiers has no tutorial, however the CD-ROM contains a 59-page game manual." Ditto
• Be sure to wikilink terms like blitzkrieg, there's no guarantee the reader will be familiar with WWII tactics for instance.
• Development's a good start but a little thin.
• Reception is also a little on the light side.
• "Jamie Barber, Gaming Director for the Bitmap Brothers explained..." could be worded more appropiately, IE just stating what it is that the developer gained, the quote after this sentence doesn't need a separate quote, it isn't anything earth-shattering. This information would be better positioned on the tail-end of development, or in a 'legacy' section if enough material exists to warrant one (TBH I don't think enough will).

That's it, feel free to resubmit the article for further assessment when you feel it has improved, thanks for your work on the article. Someoneanother 13:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have considered your points and completed all your suggestions as best I can, bar the removal of the tutorial sentence. I left that because many RTS games have tutorial levels and some have no manual and because more than one review suggested tutorial missions would of been a good addition. I also wanted to say that I don't completely agree with some of your points, particularly the first, but I made the changes anyway, presuming you know more about WikiProject Video Games expectations. I noted that your suggestions are not specifically listed in B-class criteria, although criteria 2 and 6 were probably the most relevent to your assessment. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. WP:VG assessments are more like single-editor peer reviews than just checking the article against criteria. In terms of B-class' criteria, it's #2 which is the sticking point - the incomplete plot section coupled with weak development and reception sections are what prevented me from upping the rating. What is it about my first suggestion that you disagree with? I've looked again at the examples and they read like reviewer embellishments rather than neutral statements - they would be picked up somewhere along the line. Someoneanother 20:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel I was trying to over-emphasise the positive descriptions. I have never tried, to sell anything, ever, not even once. I try to be neutral here but I understand there are fanboys writing up their favourite games and WP:VG would have to counter that regularly. I'm not sure why your convinced the plot, development and reception sections must be longer, and then claim that some material was not needed. I thought a features heading was fine and I didn't see why removing your suggestions made the article better and that the contradiction wasn't helpful. I'm also not sure why you don't think assessment criteria are that important to meet and instead claim arbituary matters like section length are vital before B-class is met. It makes me wonder if the project is worth getting involved with. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for offending you with my poor choice of words regarding 'selling' the game, it was not my belief that there was any attempt to deal with the game non-neutrally on your part, just that the adjectives were not desirable. They're exactly the kind of good-faith descriptions which appear in articles which get ironed out over time, and rather than listing each one I thought it better if you take a look at them yourself and (hopefully) think "yeah, actually they can go". I do believe assessment criteria are important to meet, but the assessment was not just about going from C to B. That is why I didn't list the B-class criteria, it's not that I'm ignoring them. It would have been much more helpful if I'd specified exactly what I'd have liked to have seen before promoting it to B, an oversight, but what I felt was needed was included in the suggestions. It wasn't the length of the sections I was worried about, it was the lack of information, particularly in plot and to a lesser extent in development and reception, which in my view did not "reasonably cover the topic". Someoneanother 09:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Source

• https://web.archive.org/web/20020225004011/http://www.gamespot-es.com/news/01_06/11/1/index.asp