Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss/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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Karanacs 20:49, 22 May 2009 [1].

Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss

[edit]
Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

I don't know if the term is used anymore, but this is a "self-nom". Since being selected as the Gaming Collaboration of the Week a few months ago, the article has seen drastic improvement. Most of the work since then has been done by me, save for the amazing copyedit courtesy of User:TKD.

The article is currently a "good article" and has undergone peer review. So, this is the next step. I believe that it meets all current FAC standards, from prose quality to verifiability. However, I will be happy to make further improvements if there is any opposition. Let the fun begin. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To answer your question: all FACs are assumed to be "self-noms" in that a major contributor to the article usually creates the nomination; if not, major contributors are required to have been consulted because they are in the best position to address comments and objections that may arise during FAC. As far as copyediting goes, I do encourage others to review my work; my own idiosyncrasies can show at times. :) — TKD::{talk} 03:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The infobox uses flags to denote release regions. The development section specifically states that the PlayStation version was only released in Japan, but were the other two releases US-only, or North America?
    • I have no idea, and I don't know how I could find out. I could change them to NA tags instead, if that would help.
I guess I'd just recommend leaving them as US-only, in that case. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any reviews available for the Pocket PC and PlayStation versions?
    • None for the PlayStation version, and no reliable ones for the Pocket PC version, as far as I could find.
  • Is the file resource external link necessary?
    • Removed.
  • I neglected to mention this in the peer review, but the article doesn't go into much detail regarding the continuity of Ultima or the distinction between the Ultima series and the Underworld series. Having never played an Ultima game, I have to confess a certain level of confusion after reading the Plot section. What's the Abyss, for instance? Could the section be fleshed out to make it more accessible to someone unfamiliar with the series?
    • It doesn't really have any continuity with other Ultima games; it's a spin-off, not a real sequel. Unfortunately, I haven't found a source that actually states this, so I can't put it in the article. I could give a little description of the Abyss and its purpose in Ultima IV, and how Ultima in general works, though. If that would help, I'll start tracking down sources right away.
Looks great now. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also a little confused by the "mantra" system. The article states that mantras can be recited after gaining experience, but it also says that mantras can be found in the manual. Are mantras like codes? Or do players get a certain amount of mantra "slots" that increases with each level, and mantras can be recited into a slot when they're discovered?
    • They're like codes. There are a few in the manual, and the rest are in the game. You type them into a text interface that appears when you get near a shrine. I'll include this in the article as soon as I find sources, but I might not be able to. I'll try my best.
  • Is Game Bytes a reliable source?
    • See below.
  • Reference 18 ("The Story of Ultima Underworld") has no publisher listed.
    • I don't know what I'd put there. It was never published; it's a statement by Paul Neurath on a fansite.
Hmm, I guess the fansite itself could be considered the publisher. The statement was made by a first-party source, so it doesn't really matter if the website itself is reliable or not. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 00:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I think the article looks great, and it's excellently researched. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. (I'll be back shortly to check them... farrier just arrived) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I completely removed the ref from the article. Since you were obviously going to strike it through anyway (it isn't some kind of decisive act), I don't see why you would bother removing mine. But whatever. Good luck with the horses, and I await your further comment. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a FAC thing, it's just one of those things, the way things are done at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As Jimmy stated, I copyedited this article before FAC. I also copyedited the story additions recently added. The article appears to be comprehensive and neutral; I searched Google Books, Google Scholar, and what I can access through my InfoTrac subscription to check that all major details were covered; as far as I can tell, they are. —TKD [talk][c] 23:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Images appear solid, there's a surprising depth of content for only online sources (and a search through LexisNexis turned up no print sources that could add to the content provided.) I ran through and made a plurality of changes, mostly just adding more explanation where necessary and chopping down on the hem-hawing. I did move the ports to the end, as I figured it made more sense to discuss the reception of the original game first. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Quite an interesting and informative article. I had no idea 3D gaming was so heavily rooted in a game I'd never heard of. Be that as it may, I noticed some issues which should probably be addressed. Some are minor stylistic concerns, which are not deal breakers.

  • Sources- All sources look to satisfy WP:RS, the Game Bytes sources looks borderline but still fine.
    • Ref 6 and 19 are both webpages on ttlg.com, but the publisher listed for them is "Game Bytes" and "Through the Looking Glass" respectively. Shouldn't both be the same?
      • The one listed as "Game Bytes" is an interview originally published by Game Bytes, now archived at Through the Looking Glass. The other one is a statement issued by the game's designer on Through the Looking Glass. If you think both should be the same, I'll change it.
    • Ref 31 from PC Gamer does not specify the issue number or which region it is from (US or UK). The issue number isn't as big a deal, but I believe the two regions have different content.
      • Specified as PC Gamer US. I don't think PC Gamer actually lists the official number of each issue, so that information isn't available.
  • Style
    • The "Development" section relies a lot on quotes; a couple which are run on sentences. This is definitely the section to use them in my opinion, but I'd say this is too much. I'd suggest some paraphrasing to minimize quotes with confusing grammar.
      • I'll look into this. It will require more than just a few minor edits, though, so give me a day or two to get it done.
    • I've never been a fan of review scores mixed in with prose. I'd say you have enough to use Template:VG Reviews. Consolidating them together generally gives the scores more meaning in my opinion. It allows you to compare them and get a quick overview of the reception.
      • I've never used this before, but I put it in. If it needs work, I can adjust it.
    • David moved the "Ports" section down to the "Legacy" section, an edit I agree with, but I question if it is big enough to warrant its own section. Maybe integrate it into the rest of the "Legacy" section.
    • Also, I think the PlayStation port should be mentioned first. It seems kind of odd to discuss them in reverse chronological order.
      • I've made an attempt at doing both of these things. Check it out and tell me what you think.
    • The sentence in "Technology" about the effects predating Duke Nukem 3D sounds like it belongs in the "Legacy" section as well.
      • It's a fairly minor note, only relevant when placed in the context of the Technology section. I've removed it entirely, for the sake of keeping the sections focused on their respective topics.
    • This phrase strikes me as weird: "Outside the English-speaking world..." But I unfortunately don't have any suggestion for it.
      • The sentence could technically be rewritten into "Response to the game was also positive outside the English-speaking world." If you think that's an improvement, I'll change it.

Overall, the article is in very good shape. I'll check back in later to see about supporting. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comments posted above. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better. Here are my replies to the remaining issues.
  • Sources-
    • I'm not sure what to do about the ttlg and Game Byte thing. Is Game Byte actually Game Byte magazine? If so then there's an index with some basic information. {{Cite journal}} has a url parameter that can be used for online versions.
    • Yeah, it's Game Bytes magazine. However, it was actually just a website; it had no print version. The site you linked to is just an archive of some of its issues. So cite journal wouldn't work here. I really don't know what to do about this.
    • I pretty sure PC Gamer US has issue numbers like other magazines, which admittedly can be buried somewhere obscure in the magazine. I have a similar problem finding the publication month of some Retro Gamer and gamesTM issues. But like I said, not a deal breaker for me.
  • Style-
    • I added citations to the scores. Personally, I don't think you need the awards section in the table. If you do keep it, I'd suggest citations for those too and remove them from the prose to avoid redundancy.
    • Done.
    • It's really just the phrase "outside the English-speaking world" that doesn't agree with me. I have this nagging feeling that there's a better way to say that. Maybe "The game was well received by non-English (or foreign) publications as well."?
    • Done.
Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
See above comments. Also, would you mind giving me some direct examples of the Development section quotations that need work? I looked through it after you mentioned it, but couldn't find anything; it's probably a result of how many times I've read that section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ultima_Underworld:_The_Stygian_Abyss/archive1&oldid=1148684989"