Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

Metal Gear Solid (1998 video game)

[edit]

Self-nomination. The article is well-written (and has been copyedited once), neutral, stable, and very accurate (much more references that a lot of gaming Featured Articles). Although the length is not as much as other gaming Featured Articles, the article is still comprehensive and covers all key details well. As far as I can tell, it passes the Manual of Style (although a few changes have been made since checking this) and the images are used correctly. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Seems to be comprehensive (sadly I've never played the game) and well-written. As good as, if not better than, all existing CVG FA's. --- RockMFR 02:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • Why are the sequals/prequals in brackets in the lead?
    • Development for Metal Gear Solid began in 1995[34] with the intent of creating the "best PlayStation game ever". The quote should have a citation. If cite 34 is used for the quote as well then why not just put it at the end of the sentence?
    • quote "if the player isn't tricked into believing that the world is real, then there's no point in making the game" citation?
    • Additionally, he wanted "a full orchestra right next to the player" which made modifications to the track (instead of switching it) at certain situations. What track? Where is a citation for the quote?
    • As of 2006, it has reached 12 issues. Maybe a better word would be "published"?
    • The Official UK PlayStation magazine labeled it as "the greatest game ever made; unputdownable while it lasts and unforgettable when finished." Citation for the quote?
    • Please expand the citation information for cite 49. Please provide last access dates for cites 61, 62 and 63.

After this nippicks are dealt with, I'll be glad to give my support. The article has gone far since I commented on it's peer review. Great job on a notable game. — Tutmosis 02:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm hoping the to-do list on the talk page is redundant otherwise maybe hold-off the FAC to finish off any expansion work you had in mind. — Tutmosis 03:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had no expansion work in mind. Available references have been exhausted, so I can't live up to the to-do list I wrote a while ago. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Is there a problem with this? Specifically, manual of style violations?
  2. It is cited in 35, which you'll see further along the paragraph.
  3. See above
  4. See above. Fixed.
  5. Fixed.
  6. Sadly, I do not have the magazine and cannot find an internet source for this. It will have to be removed.
  7. Fixed. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, all the problems I saw have been fixed. The point about the brackets, it's not a MOS violation but it's a strange way to organize a sentence. You put things in brackets that provide additional information, not are part of the sentence itself. — Tutmosis 15:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've not read any articles about video games before, so I don't know if it's common and/or permitted to use quotes from the game itself as references. To me, this verges on original research. Could somebody clarify this point for me? Jeffpw 10:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles of Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 do; I don't see too much of a problem with it. Trebor 13:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment:This needs citation "A fourth console game, titled Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots, is currently in development for the PlayStation 3."Buc 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't like mixing sources with quotes. I draw my support and oppose this article for that matter. The reason of other FA game articles using that style as your argument is not a valid basis. All FA articles are subjected to WP:FAR. My basis is this guideline and I don't like mixing references with quotes. It is difficult for readers to verifiy sources. — Indon (reply) — 12:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has the sources separated again. Are there any other problems, or was this the only thing that changed your vote? --TheEmulatorGuy 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted back to the original system. The quotes are acting to support the material in the articles; what is the value of dividing them from the other references and introducing a second citation system? Christopher Parham (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that if you feel that the number of footnotes makes browsing the sources difficult, the best bet would be to do as the policy you link suggests and create a separate references section containing an alphabetical list of the sources. Personally, I don't think this would add much value, but it makes more sense than dividing the footnotes up into two blocks. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the matter of browser capability. Quotes are not sources. Each direct quotes requires inline citations. Why do you want to mix quotes with sources? Do you want to blow up the number of references??? — Indon (reply) — 09:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously quotes are not sources; the game is the source. Since there is no convenient way to identify a particular point in most video games, providing the relevant quote is a good way to give a more specific citation. It refines the citation in the same way a page number refines an ordinary citation. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if quotes are not sources, why would mix them together? Reading References sections intertwined with quotes is awful. Quotes are usually embedded in the main article. Otherwise link them to wikiquotes. I have proposed to separate quotes in the new Footnotes section, which is cleaner, prettier and easier to read. Alas, it was reverted based on argument that other games articles use that style. Honestly, this is the first time I read mixing sources and quotes style in one section. As far as I know, there is no guideline about it. — Indon (reply) — 19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to back up Indon on the issue. Also what I'd like to know is why Indon changes were reverted. The main author, TheEmulatorGuy, seemed to have okay'd the issue [1], therefore the revert seems quite provocative. — Tutmosis 00:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted for the reason I stated above; the distinction between the two types of citation was not meaningful. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is meaningful to me, as FA is the best Wikipedia can give. Your argument is baseless. WP:WIAFA #2: It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style. Please tell me, where is a WP guideline that mixing quotes and sources is allowed? I know it is a very technical issue, that is why I corrected them. The reason you are so obstinate is unreasonable. We have to follow the same guidelines, not to some group of editors' taste only. — Indon (reply) — 08:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you can point me to the relevant guideline, that would be helpful. The guideline you mentioned above relates to the creation of "References" section that lists the sources used in alphabetical order. It doesn't so far as I can tell have anything to do with the issue of whether to place all the citations together, or to split them up into quotes and page citations. I'm not sure why you feel I am being particularly obstinate; it's not as if I am the only one who has reverted you or suggested, on this page, that this is a bad idea. Christopher Parham (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my..., you put quotes in the References section, so WP:CITE (which tells how to write the References section) says: With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used. The quotes in this article are explanatory text given as footnotes, not citations, and there a lot of quotes in the References section. This guideline is softer than WP:QUOTE (WP:QUOTE is not a guideline), where quotes must be included within the body of the text, not to be separated to other section. — Indon (reply) — 09:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems fairly clear to me that, on the contrary, the quotes are citations -- why else would they be included? Christopher Parham (talk) 10:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, quotes are not citations. Each quote needs citation. Please read again WP:CITE, especially at the "When to cite sources" section. — Indon (reply) — 12:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is not comprehensive. Practically every video game known to man is associated with problems and complaints, but this Wikipedia article reads like an ad. I'm not familiar with the game, but a very quick Web search turns up a site claiming a petition of over 1,200 people asking for some kind of patch to Metal Gear Solid PC version.BLACKLISTED LINK REMOVED No such problem is mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.Mike Serfas 19:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link you have provided is regarding a completely different game. --- RockMFR 19:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said above, the link you have provided is for a different game on a different system. As it stands, nearly all major reviewers have positively reviewed the game. Because of this, what you are asking would require original research. Of all of the reliable sources on MetaCritic, I actually chose GameSpot, the website that gave the game the WORST score, and I mentioned their qualms. If you truly believe there are major complains, I suggest you provide them, because I have not discovered any. --TheEmulatorGuy 21:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is what a Featured Article on a videogame should be. Incredibly well-cited and well-written, incredibly comprehensive, very illustrative images... great job. My only complaint is listing all of the sequels/prequels in the lead; they should have their own small section in the article, but the info is not important enough to be in the lead. In addition, the lead is supposed to summarize an article, but here is an entire paragraph that is never discussed again. Aside from that, this article is about as good as it could be. -- Kicking222 13:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's great to see a game such as MGS have such a good article about it. Excellent work. Thunderbrand 17:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support: Excellent article, but I have a few minor issues with the lead. Kicking222 is right about the sequels being named in the lead, but also there is no mention of the game's rereleases. Plus, the one sentence that is supposed to summarize the plot is buggin the hell out of me; please expand it with a little more detail or merge it into one of the paragraphs. And I don't understand Indon's objection.--Dark Kubrick 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These problems have been corrected by Hyperspacey, and I believe he is carrying out more work towards them. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing my problems, but now there is another one-sentence paragraph in the lead. Plus, in the fourth paragraph, "to date" is vague.--Dark Kubrick 22:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I merged that one sentence with the fourth (now third) paragraph, and completely remove the "to date" statement. --TheEmulatorGuy 22:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks, but I'm gonna have to declare Neutral for now, as Gzkn's superior eye for prose has made me withhold my support.--Dark Kubrick 02:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've just corrected a long standing sourcing mistake in the Reception section.[2] The mistake was screaming out at me, being that Game Rankings don't actually review games. I suggest that editors just go through to make sure the sourcing is correct. I'd also like a few sentences about the PC port, almost nothing is made of it, just something like if it too was well received and whether or not there were any extra features. I also don't think that the Cheat Code Central review is a very good source, and isn't enough to back up the claim that the "voice acting impressed critics", whereas the amateur review states that "The voice acting in MGS is above average". [3] - hahnchen 20:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sourcing mistake was the only edit made by that specific user, so any other referencing problems are unlikely. About the PC port, it has been stated it is the exact same game as Metal Gear Solid: Integral (of which its extra features were talked about), therefore the only thing needed is how it was received. In addition to that, I will find more reliable reviews for the original game. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears Hyperspacey has provided information on the PC version's reception. --TheEmulatorGuy 01:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have done some extensive alterations to the article, mainly based on the issues raised here. Being eight years old, many websites have since ceased hosting their old reviews and my magazine collection from then was binned long ago, so Reception may need more work. Still, I think this could make FA. A copy-edit or two would be nice first. Hyperspacey 01:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, once a few more citations are added and it has had a few copy-edits and checks. Hyperspacey 03:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Quality of prose is troubling, among other issues.
    • Why are there so many references in the lead? The lead should be a stand-alone summary of the article; ideally, everything should be cited in the rest of the article.
    • Metal Gear Solid's story centers on retired soldier Solid Snake infiltrating a nuclear weapons disposal facility, in order to neutralize the terrorist threat from FOXHOUND, a renegade special forces unit. "centers on retired soldier Solid Snake infiltrating" is quite awkward. The dreaded "in order to".
    • In order to complete his objective, he must liberate their two hostages, the head of DARPA and the president of a major arms manufacturer, and stop the terrorists from launching a nuclear strike[6]— but on the way, he has to confront betrayal, death, and his own past More dreaded "in order to". In fact, "In order to complete his objective" is completely redundant. The last clause after the emdash is what I'd call "movie preview prose". Not the most encyclopedic sentence.
    • The commercial success of the title[3] Why is there a citation for that?
    • Enemy weaknesses and patterns (as well as other in-game procedures) are explained by the characters in the game as if Snake is the player himself. That confused me.
    • FOXHOUND, an elite special forces unit, is comprised of
    • threatening the U.S. government of a nuclear reprisal With?
    • in order to rescue Dr. Hal Emmerich
    • ...the genetically engineered virus "FoxDie," designed to kill people with particular genetic codes;[32][33] earlier claiming the lives of Baker and Octopus. What's going here?
    • ...with the intent of creating the "best PlayStation game ever". Citation? If the one that appears earlier in the sentence covers this, just move it to the end of the sentence.
    • I noticed that "Hideo Kojima" is linked four times in the article. Please make sure to rid redundant wikilinks.
    • ...on the title refers not only to the fact that
    • Hideo Kojima wanted greater interaction with objects and the environment, such as hiding bodies in a locker. Interesting use of the gerund...leads to some ambiguity.
    • Additionally, he wanted "a full orchestra right next to the player" which made modifications to the currently playing track (instead of switching it) at certain situations. Didn't understand this sentence.
    • Reasonably well recieved by critics, scoring 83 on the Metacritic aggregate... hyphen+sp. This structure makes for an awkward sentence.
    • This is a minor quibble, but the spacing around the em dashes is not consistent.
    • ...IDW Publications began release of a comic book version of Metal Gear Solid "Began release"?
    • Metal Gear Solid was publicly successful... I don't think this is the right way to phrase this...invites the question: could it be privately successful?
    • Finally, a lot of sentences would be better if they followed parallel construction. For example, instead of Upon release, it was one of the most rented games,[69] also topping sales charts in the United Kingdom, try "Upon release, it was one of the most rented games,[69] and topped sales charts in the United Kingdom". Instead of GameSpot granted a lower rating of 8.5/10, calling it "revolutionary" but criticizing the length and difficulty. try "GameSpot granted a lower rating of 8.5/10, calling it "revolutionary" but criticized the length and difficulty." It's much kinder on readers. Gzkn 03:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1: The references used in the lead are the same ones used throughout the article, so I don't see a problem with this.
2 to 9: Fixed.
10: Why have I had so many problems with this? It is cited later on, the same reference that cites the SWAT-team information.
11: Fixed, now there are only 2 links (both very far apart)
12: Fixed.
13: Fixed, I think. Not exactly sure what the problem is, but I tried.
14 to 18: Fixed. Thanks for your great suggestions. --TheEmulatorGuy 04:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not being clearer. By hyphen in 13, I meant "well-received" should be hyphenated. The structure of the sentence is still a bit weird with the two modifiers ("Reasonably well received by critics — scoring 83 on the Metacritic aggregate — it..."). I also see now that my last example (criticizing->criticized) wasn't the best advice ("calling"). :) Anyway, I'd suggest finding a copy-editor to run through it. I'd do it, but the article doesn't hold much interest for me. User:Deckiller's into video games, and his copy-editing skills are much better than mine. Consider asking him to look over the article if he's not too busy. Gzkn 03:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Took a really quick pass through first two sections; I'll continue later. Great article. — Deckiller 06:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Would it be possible to expand the Reception section? Currently, it fails to detail Japanese critical reception. Also, the critical reception overall could use some expansion, particularly with magazine reviews. The review from Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine should be included, as should Game Informer's. Oh, and if possible, a section detailing the game's influence on gaming would be nice, but I'm not sure if there are any notable articles on this subject. JimmyBlackwing 05:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Expansion of overall critical reception I am working on, it's quite difficult to source reliable reviews for an old game. The Japanese reception and gaming influences I'm not so sure about, both are near-impossible to reference; and I've never seen a featured article with Japanese reception. I'll make an attempt on its influence, but no guarantees. Overall reception, however, will be expanded soon. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Japanese reception is usually quite good to have in FAs, especially for Japanese games, usually it's just a Famitsu score and quote. I don't think it's necessary for a Official Playstation Magazine quote though, it's not that important, and "official" magazines aren't exactly the most impartial source of reviews. If you are however looking to expand the critical reception and maybe an influence section, I suggest you ask some of the editors at WP:CVG/M. User:Mitaphane has an article available from issue 35 of Next Generation Magazine on 25 Breakthrough Games,[4] one of them being MGS and a review in issue 48. User:X201 can give you quotes from Edge magazine's review from Issue 64 if you ask him. The page may look difficult to navigate, but all you do is use your browser search to find the game and source you want. - hahnchen 03:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was one of the last games I played really heavily before I stopped playing video games so it's nice to see it here it brings back some memories. As it stands now it's very objectively written and well sourced. One qualm the Metacritic quote doesn't explain what Metacritic is and a lot of people may not know what it is. Referring to it like they do will require them to stop reading and go to the wikilink to find out about it consequently ruining the flow of the article. Perhaps you could say "the review tallying website Metacritic.com reported that 94% of the reviews they tallied were positive". Or maybe just come up with some other similarly concise way of saying it was very favorably reviewed. Quadzilla99 18:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm still a little disappointed in the Metacritic comment in the opening paragraph. Quadzilla99 17:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind I tweaked it. Quadzilla99 19:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nothing much for me to say that hasn't been said †he Bread 3000 03:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - was going to put this on the talk page, but it seems applicable here. Judging from some of the above posts, the lead section should summarize the entire article, and others want a longer (ie, more than two sentences) of the game's plot. IMHO the plot summary in the lead-in shouldn't be more than two sentences, given that it has an entire section devoted to it (and quite a lengthy one at that, with all the plot twists and turns), and it lengthens the introduction without really adding anything meaningful (try reading just the first sentence of that paragraph and it pretty much sums up the whole game, minus interpersonal interaction). So my question is: as of the 16 Jan version, should the introduction have a longer (paragraph-length) or shorter (one or two sentences) summary of the plot? I'm fine either way, but wanted more than a single FAR's opinion on the matter. VirogIt's notmy fault! 06:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Again, not much to be said that hasn't already been covered. While I am new to Wikipedia, I still can see that this article has had much work put into it and once it has gone through a few editorial changes, I totally put my support behind this article being featured. As a fan of the series, and a fan who knows a lot about the series, I feel this article is perfectly articulated and accurate. AC 14:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have made some alterations to the Plot section, which until now has merely skirted over the game's narrative themes of genetic legacy, inheritence and nuclear warfare. The entire plot section isn't very well cited, though, with numerous quotes with no context to them. Given the trully epic amount of web-space taken up by discussions on MGS1's plot, I would suggest we get a few secondary sources instead of all these bitty primary ones. A plot summary from a major website could back-up the entire Plot section in a single refence, to be honest, and would substantially clean up the References section of the article. Hyperspacey 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many primary references are a lot better than one secondary reference, but regardless, the only plot summary I had found a while ago was on a fansite, making it unreliable. --TheEmulatorGuy 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel that the plot section may be a little too long now for a non-RPG synopsis, but that's up for you guys to determine. Also, the plot section shouldn't use fan forum debates as sources; the only reliable source is the script itself, it seems. — Deckiller 06:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception section— it needs to be expanded by at least 50 percent. Right now it's good, but short. I can help, but the first paragraph needs to be twice the size; it should have direct quotes and specifications. Also, have you considered adding a rating chart? — Deckiller 06:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Metal_Gear_Solid_(1998_video_game)/archive1&oldid=1138466830"