Wikipedia:Peer review/Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered/archive1

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered

I've listed this article for peer review because I am looking to get it to FA status if possible, as it has remained at GA status for several years. My main issues I have with it is that it contains some questionable sources that I've not been able to replace with better ones. I would also appreciate opinions on whether editors consider it broad enough to be a GA. Thanks. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: to get quicker and more responses to pre-FAC peer review requests, please remember to add your PR page to Template:FAC peer review sidebar. And when you close this peer review, please be sure to remove it from there. Also consider adding the sidebar to your userpage so you can help others by participating in other pre-FAC peer reviews. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Does the peer review sidebar update if you have it on your talk page? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If you add it to your talk page, you will always see the most current version there, reflecting what other editors have added or removed from the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A look at references (from Le Panini)

• Reference 12 is broken.

Looking at other featured article candidates, source reviews are necessary. They will make sure every source is reliable. I'll point out some discrepancies here. It's better to get this done now; over there, they'll simply give you a list of sources that are questionable. These sources should be replaced by better sources if they are present.

• PVP Live (ref 16) is unlisted on WP:VG/RS

  Note: When I say unlisted or unreliable, I'll be referring to this list.

• PlayStation Lifestyle (ref 18)
• GearNuke (ref 20) is unlisted
• If you could find a better source for Twitter (ref 21), do so.
• Charlie INTEL (ref 22) is unlisted
• New Game Network (ref 25) is unlisted
• SegmentNext (ref 66) is unlisted
• Geek (ref 70) is unlisted
• The Escapist (ref 73) is incoclusive
• Opshead (ref 30) is unlisted
• Gamespresso (ref 74) is unlisted

  And, per MOS:ALLCAPS, this source should be lowercase anyways.

• iTech Post (ref 78, 84) is unlisted
• Beyond Entertainment (ref 79) is unlisted
• The Jimquisition (ref 80) is situational, as long as this source is being used for an opinion, like a review.
• Mic (ref 86) is inconclusive

However, all other sources (Polygon, Kotaku, etc.) are reliable sources, so this is not bad considering an article this size.

@Le Panini: Hi.

• I've since fixed ref 12 (a Eurogamer article).
• The Escapist is listed as a situational source on WP:VG/RS, it's not unlisted.
• As Activision Support is from the official Activision website I assumed this would be fine, although I can look to replace with another source if not.

It's fine, actually, although its a primary source. I think you should be fine with this one.

@Le Panini: I have just noticed only some of the prose was actually sourced with the Activision Support page so I've replaced it with two articles already cited (I couldn't find just one article that did the job). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• The rest (excluding Mic and The Jimquisition) I've previously looked to replace with more reliable sources, but have been unable to find any (not helped if there's any results Google has hidden), meaning the prose may have to be deleted, if this is what you would suggest? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: If it's a situation where the prose is very important and beneficial to the text and the history of the game as a whole, you're bound to find some other sources talking about it. If not, you can most likely work it out of the text properly. I'll help out with this.

• The both cases where PVP Live appears, its only supporting other reliable sources. This can easily be cut. This is the same for Playstation Lifestyle.

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Gearnuke is supported by the Twitter source, so I'd remove this and keep the Twitter reference for now; this part is about gameplay, meaning you could probably a source talking about this in reviews from the reception section, like IGN and Destructoid.

@Le Panini: The Gearnuke article actually links to more Twitter posts from the developer so I might put these in too. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• There same above could apply for Charlie INTEL, although this one might be more tricky.

Charlie INTEL is a lot more questionable because it links to a YouTube video from a Call of Duty fan channel; they're a big name for reporting on series leaks and other news. I can't see this being left in to be honest. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• You might be alright with New Game Network, but don't quote me on that. This is developer info.
• SegmentNext is highlighting an issue on Steam. I believe that if reliable sources were mentioning this, then its probably an actual problem. For now, this reference, and the sentence it's supporting, can be cut.

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• For Geek and Gamespresso you have two options. One, these two sources are covering how the Infinite Warfare bundling didn't really matter. They're covering the opposing side, and this can stay until better sources are put in. Two, if these are the only two sources that are covering this opposing side, do they really cover what the players are saying compared to the drastic amount of negative reception towards the other side? This paragraph can be cut entirely. If you believe either one of these decisions are a better idea, its your choice.

My concern about cutting the paragraph is that the subsection would only have one remaining paragraph left, and while it's not unusual for a subsection to have one, usually they have to be of decent length (unless you think it is acceptable)? Wikibenboy94

@Wikibenboy94: It's a pretty hearty paragraph, however. I've done stuff like this before.

@Le Panini: These were the best articles I could find, although today I've also looked over VG247's article on the bundling (which is sourced), and they say the following which I think we could use:

"But for all the snark on social media and in comments section, the 30 million strong Call of Duty tribe is almost certainly hammering the pre-order button at retailers around the world, if only because of Modern Warfare Remastered."
"It’s a brilliant strategy. The Call of Duty faithful are pre-ordering because… Call of Duty. The new-and-different crowd is excited by Infinite Warfare’s seeming growth and exploration. The nostalgic and cynical are drawn in by a genuine modern classic."

If it does end up being one paragraph, then could we put VG247's dissenting opinion on the end of it? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Go for it. Le Panini ^[🥪] 12:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• The Escapist is simply prose, this can easily be cut from the article. To replace it, write out another opinion from a more reliable source.

I'll look again but I did struggle to find further sources, particularly reliable ones, giving their own opinions on the bundling. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Just looked again and could only find a Rock, Paper, Shotgun article, although most of it's written in a very satirical and sacarstic tone that doesn't really have much to say otherwise. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you link to the source? I'll try to see if I could salvage something.

There were three RPS articles for news surrounding Remastered by the same author and each had something disparaging to say about the bundling. Obviously I'd lean towards the article written in response to the bundling confirmation.

• https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/05/03/call-of-duty-4-remastered-not-sold-separately/
• https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/06/23/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-remastered-standalone-release-coming/
• https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/07/27/call-of-duty-modern-warfare-remastered-now-sold-seperately/

Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• You won't be able to get just of a good response from The Escapist, but I'd do something with this part:

"If it seems I’m making a big deal of this, it’s because I’d increasingly like to see Activision splitting Call of Games up into their constituent parts. I like their big wacky campaigns with explosive set pieces, and I want to see Jeff Goldblum fighting zombies in co-op, but I’ve no interest in the core multiplayer. I’d certainly spend a lot more on CoD if could I pay only for the bits I wanted."

Le Panini ^[🥪] 18:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Opshead, both times its used, is supported by other sources. This could be cut.

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Looking at The Jimquisition, this source is fine. Jim Sterling used to write for Destructoid, a reliable source. Keep this for now, as long as he's being used for reception and critical review purposes.
• iTech is supported alongside Destructoid and Push Square. You can cut this.

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Beyond Entertainment has one sentence. You can cut this part, too.

 Done by Le Panini Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Mic is situational. I'd just leave this intact for now.

I have just found a similar article from the more reliable Rock, Paper, Shotgun (not the same article mentioned above) if necessary. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rock, Paper, Shotgun is reliable and we know this for sure, so we wouldn't be losing anything if this was replaced. Le Panini ^[🥪] 10:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Further comments from Le Panini

Lead

• Although there is nothing about gameplay in the lead, I would consider the updated graphics contents to be the gameplay part. With that, I would reorganize the second paragraph; I would move the development info down to the latter half of the paragraph.

• And although it isn't much, and considering it's a remaster, there still isn't anything about gameplay or plot in the lead. That's two major parts of the article that is often overlooked in video game articles. Put a little snippit about the plot in the first paragraph (here's a reference, and probably put gameplay...

• You know what, considering an article this size I would make the lead four paragraphs. Keep the first paragraph intact; the second could be about plot and gameplay; the third could be about graphics and development (in that order); the fourth should be reception. Panini^🥪 22:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm shifting between unsure and disagree for a lot of this, and I think it would be beneficial if an additional editor weighed in. I'm not sure what you mean by associating mention of the gameplay with the "updated graphics contents", unless you're referring to the list of changes where it says "retains the original core gameplay while offering a number of small improvements"? I will hold fire on explicitly describing gameplay in the lead until the Gameplay section is significantly extended to illustrate original gameplay mechanics (per the comments under Gameplay in this review). The plot I'm even less inclined to include due to it being a remaster and not a new game: in the plot's subsection it's a simplified version of the one from the Call of Duty 4 article, to which it's also linked. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

ImaginesTigers

Let's take it a section at a time.

Gameplay

Try not to describe the game's gameplay by comparing it to the previous version of the game. That isn't going to fly with your reviewers—many of them won't know anything about the previous game. As long as you can find reliable sources to this effect, don't be afraid to transpose good extracts from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare over (attribute it in the talk page). Read through this section as if you've never played a Call of Duty game before, and that should throw light on some of its problems. This article needs to stand on its own—be fully understandable without reading the original game's article. Gameplay has a lot of problems in this respect. Imagine you have never played a COD game, and read these back

• It keeps the same collectibles and cheats as before
• it is a first-person shooter in which the player controls several characters. Are the characters all controlled at once? It isn't clear
• It includes the same weapons, killstreaks, perks, and game modes from Modern Warfare what are kill streaks and perks?
• All new content can be unlocked through completing challenges, crafting by consuming "Parts" that the player can earn, or by opening supply drops; existing items from the original remain unlockable only through gaining in experience Are loot boxes really gameplay, or are they part of the revenue model? Explain briefly what loot boxes are (have a look here for examples.

Non-exhaustive list. It doesn't need to massively balloon in size, but you do need to explain things more clearly for non-gamers.

I was wondering, as WP:FACR writes that there needs to be "images and other media, where appropriate", and the two in Development are basically used in tandem, what are your thoughts on the possibility of having a screenshot put in this section (particularly from the multiplayer, as those in Development are from the campaign)? Do you think it necessary, especially as you said it needs to stand on its own? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Be really careful with images. They're being used under Fair Use, which means they really need to justify being there. League of Legends has one. You generally need to settle for one, I'm afraid, so it’s up to you to pick whichever image conveys the absolute most you can in that one image. The Fair Use rationale will need to be strong, too. Here's the one on LoL: There are three primary purposes of this image. Firstly is that it conveys the game's colourful art style; the second is that it provides a visual representation of "minions" in the game, and what "farming" looks like, to stop it being very abstract. The third reason is that, because they are two champions per side in bot lane, it maximises visual information about how players tell allies apart from enemies (health bars). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

You mean pick one of the two images already in Development to keep? I mean I will if I have to, but I feel that would defeat the purpose of a comparison, which is why they were put in. I presume also it's not permitted for two images to be combined into one. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

With these words I summon an image specialist. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's innately a problem with having two images (and you can merge them into a single image for ease of handling, but it's not like via that transformative property you're 'only' using one non-free image.) You just need to have the fair-use rationale to defend it. As the article stands right now the commentary on the updated graphics feels a little thin, but I don't think there should be an issue crafting a rationale. Just looking at the images used, though, I do wonder if better comparison shots exist; I can't tell if the Remastered shot is supposed to be from the same cinematic or point in the cinematic, but it looks tremendously different. Maybe that's the point, but using an image where it's easier to 1-to-1 the changes might be more illustrative of the differences, e.g. the samples here: [1] Alternatively, images that more clearly demonstrate the "paintover" approach, especially if there are some reviews that mention that element. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: The Remastered screenshot was one I took via PS4 capture for the purpose of the article. In part because I wasn't that well-versed in the copyright of images (and I still am a bit sketchy considering I've only done it the once) I thought that as a screenshot existed for the Call of Duty 4 article, that same one could also be used in Remastered to compare with my screenshot. It's the same cinematic but it's not the same point-in-time, purely because the character opposite the player is at a notably different angle than his original counterpart (in which he leans forward when the ship is passing). Might have made sense to screenshot it at the same point but in my opinion, despite them not performing the same action, there's more of a contrast than there is compared with the current comparison, when the only thing that immediately pops out at you is the placement of the ship. If I'd have known about that PCGamesN article you'd linked I probably would have looked into using those, which I'm presuming I'm free to (as I said, I'm a bit sketchy on exactly what can be used).

I've only read of paint-over in two articles sourced and can't find any others, but regardless none of them had comparison images. On the other hand, I've come across a site called ArtStation which per its description is "the leading showcase platform for games, film, media & entertainment artists". They have several screenshots of Remastered, some showcased on their own, some being compared with screenhots from Call of Duty 4, but only two here and here explicity mention the use of paint-over. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

You're free to use whatever images that are online; it's basically all non-free content, no matter the source, so that doesn't much matter (what does is shrinking it down to minimize usage and writing a good non-free use rationale.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Thanks. My two concerns of those I linked was that it's possible the remastered images were taken during development and may not actually be the finished product (although having played the games it's indistinguishable to me). More importantly however, part of the comparison image I was intending to use has a timestamp on it. Is it appropriate to trim images? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Having gone through the game again, the remastered image is actually different to the end product. Might just use the ones from PCGamesN. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

You're totally free to crop and modify non-free images. Cropping watermarks and such would be one reason, another would be to crop a screen to a tighter frame on the subject so it's actually legible at small image sizes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:08, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: I've decided to replace the current comparison images with those in the PCGamesN article of the player facing Price and the two soldiers [2], particularly as it's from the same point in time, and also because both have the same dimensions. I won't merge them both into one image as they'd need to be shrunk further. Unfortunately I've just made a screw-up in my attempt to preview the page with the new images on by not realising that they will be automatically uploaded to Wikimedia Commons as a result [3], and it's also been marked as my work, so I presume it will require a speedy deletion from there. Sorry! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I've just flagged it for speedy deletion with the reason "accidental creation" (though wasn't sure if it should have come under the tag for copyright violations). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Sorry it's been a while David. Are you able to help me get these images into the article as I'm not that familiar with the process? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Plot

Mostly fine. I don't know what an "Ultranationalist" is (is it just the name of a political party?). What does "loyalist" mean in that concept? It means something very specific in the UK, and I don't think that applies here.

@ImaginesTigers: Essentially it's referring to ultranationalism, and it's the name of the political party in the game, one of the antagonistic factions. Similarly, I presume "loyalist" also refers to loyalism (which I didn't know was a UK term until now) as it's only used by the SAS in-game. I can always link these in the article as necessary. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Linked to respective articles, along with some other terms used. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

AHHHHHHHH!! Ben! You don't need to ping me all those times—just once is enough to summon me from my dark resting place. I got 7 emails!

Don't worry much about Plot, imo. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is already at FA. You could just replicate the plot section completely with some tweaks to bring the length down. Just make sure you attribute that you took it from there in the edit summary and, to go to the full mile, put it on the Talk page. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

I mean, I'm not sure how I could replicate the exact wording without then making notable changes when I tweak it. I personally don't see a problem with how its currently worded. There's nothing mentioned that isn't already included in the Call of Duty 4 plot. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Development

This section still has the highest concentration of problems. Windows Central is very likely not going to pass as a high quality RS (the requirement for FA), so be aware of that. There's some stuff that feels like puffery, too. Let's do a bulleted list.

• This is really clunky: After an online petition signed by fans of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was released requesting that a remaster of the game be developed, series publisher Activision became interested in carrying out such a project. It also has a subtext of "we did it for the fans!", when, more likely, they did it to sell Infinite Warfare. There's a lot of words here that could be simplified, drastically, to: Activision became interested in a remaster of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare following the circulation of an online petition. Mentioning "the fans" doesn't need to be there (it’s an online petition).

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Basically none of the quotes really need to be here. Paraphrase them, like you should with reception sections.

Is there any aversion to quotes for FA's? Does this also apply for those used for terms or short phrases like "redefining what the term "remaster" meant" or short phrases like "The majority of Modern Warfare was "rebuilt from the ground up" (quoting the latter was instructed in the GA review as it had seemed informal). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Taken out most of the quotes. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• References should be attached to punctuation—preferably full stops, but commas are fine too. Development sections are always going to be drawing from interviews and the like, so there's a certain amount of in-built puffery. Your job is to stamp it out! This is another example: Raven were encouraged by their principle of keeping the core gameplay unchanged. Game studios like Raven are big places with lots of employees - let's not attribute emotions to them.

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• The first word in a quotation shouldn't be capitalised unless it is introduced with a colon. This shouldn't matter too much (because you'll be stripping away many of the quotations), but make sure to fix that.
• A few new cheats were incorporated into the game's campaign, while keeping the same cheats and intel file collectibles from the original. Still don't really know what this means, and I played COD4

@ImaginesTigers: The collectibles are called "intel" in-game, and appear as laptops. This may have been why I called them files, or I was just influenced by reading the COD wikia. Either way, they don't actually provide information in Call of Duty 4 (or Remastered), they only unlock cheats for the campaign. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Removed the "intel files" description. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You have a pretty tricky task ahead of you. I think I understand the issue that you're running into: sources aren't properly describing the game, its systems, and its mechanics because the game isn't "new". If you can find a source that says a feature is identical to the original, then in my opinion you should be able to use high quality, reliable sources from the 2007 game's article to source basic gameplay mechanics, and explain them properly to the reader. If I'm understanding right, and that is a problem you've encountered, then I will advise that you take a lil wander over to WT:FAC, and ask them if that would be okay. I'd fight in your corner on this one—that seems reasonable to me, and a straightforward way to make the article more comprehensive, while keeping it relevant. You might need to demonstrate to them that the sources very consistently describe the game by comparing it to the 2007 game, rather than treating it as a purely independent subject. Does that make sense? I think you will struggle to have the article be understandable to a wide range of Featured Article reviewers without explaining things in closer detail.

Just looking at the sources for the Gameplay section of the Call of Duty 4 article, only three are used: one is citing the book of the official strategy guide, another is citing the video game itself (is that even a thing?), and the third is citing Yahoo! Games, the reliability of which has not been concluded. Am I going to have trouble here? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• The single-player campaign saw a number of new first-person animations similarly added for further immersion and emotional responses from players I don't know how new animations create an emotional response -- puffery imo (only the cold, dead facts should be here)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• The prose just isn't ready yet across the board. A few of examples of sentences that could be tightened, or don't make sense to me:

• Most of the existing motion capture animation was redone for the same reason, as well as to provide further story exposition.

@ImaginesTigers: The "story exposition" (agree, not worded terribly well) was referring to the new animations for characters that show them doing something more than what they did in the original (per the example used in the article: trying to save a comrade from falling from a helicopter in the remaster, when they did nothing in the original). However, looking back over the articles the prose is definitely a little sloppy here as the animations that were added for story exposition in one sentence, and for immersion and emotional responses in another, all relate to the same thing talked about. In addition to being made clearer, I think these also need to be merged together. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• each received better dynamics, alterations made to their firing mechanisms, and a new feature in the series that allowed each type to eject shell casings unique to that weapon What are dynamics? "Eject shell casings unique to that weapon" for what purpose? Is this development or is this new gameplay? If there's a lot of this, why not make a heading or subheading about the differences between COD4 and COD4R?

@ImaginesTigers: Agree that "dynamics" isn't really clear. This comes under development. It's referring to the fact bullets that are injected into the gun remain inside the weapon before they come out the other side; they don't disappear midway. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Find a way to describe that in the article! You know your stuff—find a way to source and explain it to readers. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Artificial intelligence is given "(AI)" but it’s never used again

@ImaginesTigers: Not sure what you mean. The full name or just "AI" is not used again? AI is also present in the fifth paragraph of Reception. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In general, defining things in parenthesis is only going to be useful to readers if they're used in that section. I might differ a little from others on this, but if I see "(AI)", the first thing I do is skim the rest of a heading for it. I see what you mean, but feels weird to me. Readers don't read a whole article beginning to end—they read the lead, then jump around out of order. I think we have to cater to them a little bit. — ImaginesTigers (talk)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• The developers focused on improving every gun in the game, explaining "We needed to take the weapons up to the same level of personality as the characters" puffery

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• The existing audio was remastered using reverberation, depth, and spatial effects to enhance the overall ambiance of the game ?

@ImaginesTigers: Typo of "ambience". I used this to refer to the general atmosphere of how the game sounds (they used the words "personality and character"). Would you recommend re-wording this or just cutting the ambience bit? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I know what ambience is, yeah—I just meant that this doesn't feel descriptive. It feels too fan-like. Why not something straightforward and descriptive: The developers remastered the game's audio, adding reverberation, depth, and spatial effects.

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• due to the developers being unable to meet the proposed deadline. I haven't been spot checking so far, but this doesn't really feel like what Pellas said. There was no deadline proposed. According to Pellas, they "quickly realised" that 16 wasn't going to be possible, and agreed with Activision that it would launch with 10.

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• Similarly, a number of weapon sounds in the multiplayer that had been altered were again revised this is word soup a bit

@ImaginesTigers: What do you mean "word soup"? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s just a bit muddled -- sorry, British term, I think. Let's look at the whole thing:

Initially, the original voices of the multiplayer announcers from Modern Warfare were also changed, but this was reverted for Remastered's release following fan complaints expressed at the Call of Duty: XP 2016 where its multiplayer was first made playable. Similarly, a number of weapon sounds in the multiplayer that had been altered were again revised to more accurately represent those found in the original game.

what about...

Following negative player feedback at Call of Duty: XP 2016, the developers reverted changes to the game's multiplayer announcers. Similarly, weapon audio was revised to more closely resemble those found in the original game.

Do you see what I'm getting at? "weapon sounds [...] that had been altered were again revised" is just a bit clunky. Aim for saying in in as few words as possible

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Marketing and release

This one is pretty much fine imo. It’s weird that the other 6 maps aren't mentioned anywhere.

Reception

I described the problems with this section before, so same still applies. It is too heavy on the "X said Y, Z said B". Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections exists for this purpose! It’s a common problem. Group publications together and don't just quote them; describe their positions. There's a good structure to it, so this is the main issue. The topic sentence beginning with Several aspects across both modes needs some work. Same problems extend across the other sub-headings. You're using many words to explain what can be expressed in fewer. Geek.com, Push Square, and Gamespresso are not likely to pass the HQRS bar. Evidence of micropayments had first been raised some days after release when data miners uncovered hidden weapons within the game's files that indicated their future inclusion If you can't see the issues with this, I might suggest that you approach the Guild of Copy Editors for some assistance. They're usually quite quick with VG articles (preferably you want someone who hasn't really played the game).

 Done Cleaned up the repetitive phrasing and minimised use of quotes. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I know it's required, but my two concerns with needing to paraphrase opinions for this game is that a) the number of highly reliable reviews (not counting VG247's article) able to be sourced is very small, and b) every reviewer has an overall positive opinion for the technical enhancements, single-player, and multiplayer, the only general criticism focusing on certain "outdated" components; there's little difference of opinions, and there's nothing that proved polarising across the board that might have added some variety. Basically I just can't see how each paragraph we'll end up with is going to be of a decent-enough size for this section of an article trying to meet FAC. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: The FA criteria says that the article must be comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context and well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. There are some articles which are just too small to become Featured, but this isn't going to be one of them. If BioShock 2: Minerva's Den can do fine, I think this will, too. Let me have a quick look...

• VG247 should be fine
• USgamer should be fine
• Rock Paper Shotgun should be fine
• VentureBeat should be fine,
• IGN will be fine
• Eurogamer will be fine
• PC Gamer will be fine

There's enough there to get a decent reception section out of it. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

It was only really the game's critical response section I was concerned about rather than the other subsections, however I think I'd just got it in my head that quotes were not recommended, whereas it's more the fact that they just need to be used sparingly or made very brief (reading BioShock 2: Minerva's Den helped). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Push Square is considered reliable on WP:VG/RS, and they're working to remove the Geek.com and Gamespresso sources to be replaced by VG247. And, @Wikibenboy94:, if it helps at all, you can take a look at this. Le Panini ^[🥪] 17:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A source being on WP:VG does not make it a high quality reliable source, which is what the FA criteria requires. Dot Esports is on WP:VG/RS—it still doesn't fly at FAC. Push Square is going to be similar unless what is outlined below can be displayed. The first thing that a source reviewer will do for Push Square is determine how airtight the WP:VG consensus was. Not particularly. Czar's concerns, as often does happen, went unanswered (the noticeboard is under-read; it happens). As for advice essays, Copyediting reception settings has been around since 2016, and is often used, cited, and updated by regular FA contributors, and is pretty neat, too. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 02:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a shame about Push Square. Would this also affect their opinion articles, as this is my main concern. Cutting them out will mean we only have one source left opposing the remaster bundling in opposition to the one supporting it. It will also mean one less review in an already pretty meagre list. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 10:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've looked again over the Metacritic reviews, and (apart from a print review from PlayStation Official Magazine – UK) the only web sources that appear on WP:VG/RS and could be considered reliable were six foreign-language ones, which isn't ideal. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Try this list out. And, this might be stupid, but if it was initially released as part of Infinite Warfare, have you looked at that game's reviews? Agree that cutting that criticism isn't good.... Let's page [[User:Ferret|ferret]. Any chance you could help this chap find some reliable sourcing that covers the criticism of Remastered's bundling? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ferret: Hi, please see above. ImaginesTigers made an error in the template when trying to ping. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

One site on OpenCritic that wasn't on Metacritic and is deemed reliable at WP:VG/RS was GameZone. Thoughts? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

General advice for readying an article's sources for FAC:

1. Go to Google.
2. Type in the name of the site, followed by "-site:website". So, for GameZone, you're Googling GameZone -site:gamezone.com.
3. Click the News tab.

What this does is searches for other websites that have mentioned GameZone. Nothing turns up (bad start). You then go to the website, and look around for an About section to see if you can find anything about their ethics policies (I couldn't; also a bad start). Your final port of call is researching the author. Have they written for many publications, are they a member of the press, or a freelancer? I can't find much about the GameZone article's author, either. Unfortunately, my gut is GameZone won't be permitted.

Had another look for a joint Infinite Warfare and Remastered review and the best I could find was from Trusted Reviews that only has a brief passage on MWR's multiplayer comparing it to IW's (here). They have a pretty substantial ethics policy, and the author Brett Phipps (going by his LinkedIn) has written for other publications like The Independent, IGN and GameSpot.

Other Remastered-only reviews I managed to find came from Windows Central (reliability already discussed), GQ (here), and Thurrott.com (here). GQ is the most distinguished, however it's not really ideal due to it being a men's magazine focusing mainly on male fashion and culture; perhaps unsurprisingly, it lacked an About page on its writing ethics. The author Sam White is a copy-editor/social media manager/freelancer but has a professional track record, having written for notable publications such as The Guardian, The Telegraph, and VICE. Thurrott also appears to be generally well-known, a website in collaboration with Petri.com and managed by author/blogger/reviewer Paul Thurrott, who's written about Microsoft products for over two decades. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: I know you said there wasn't a need to ping you, but you'd publicy thanked me for the above when I'd tweaked it 5 days ago but I didn't know if you were going to advise on whether you recommended sourcing these? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I've today found another joint IW/Remastered review from Electronic Gaming Monthly which I'm certain is an acceptable source for FAC, so I will source this if need be. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s not quite ready for FAC yet, but—with some work—it isn't far off. Hope this helps! 13:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Many thanks for your help. I'm just drafting responses up now as necessary. You mentioned Windows Central as a potentially unreliable source, but not the two now remaining which are Charlie INTEL and Twitter (I commented on them previously in response to Le Panini)? What are your thoughts? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem isn't that the sources are unreliable. The problem here is that FAC has higher requirements for sourcing than GA does. The criteria says they must be "high quality reliable source", meaning that you have to be able to demonstrate:

1. The source's reporting is reproduced in major, reliable publications.
2. They are backed by a reputable publisher: a university, a major newspaper, a widely recognised institution
3. That the author is a member of the press

With any one of these criteria, the source is reliable, and can be listed on, for example, VG/RS. But for it to be "high quality", you need to demonstrate multiple of these. With Twitter, the answer is probably no—if you need to source it to an involved party's Twitter, you need to question whether it should be there. I've never heard of Charlie INTEL, but it sounds like a fan-site to me. Sourcing is very often a major problem with video game articles, so just be careful! Anything else, just ping me. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Yeah sorry I do understand, just wasn't thinking and subconsciously used "potentially unreliable" (been using that phrase too many times recently!). The problem with those questionable sources like Twitter and Charlie INTEL, particularly concerning gameplay, is that I've often used them as a last resort due to not being able to find any other that gives the same information (like how Prestige in multiplayer works and its relation to unlocking content, which in my opinion holds some significance as part of gameplay). But ultimately, if nothing can be found at all elsewhere then I assume the likelihood is they will need to be removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem! I see what you mean now, my bad. I totally feel your pain here. There's so, so much stuff that has to be removed to get an article through FAC, especially when it comes to video game stuff. Even important things that appear really important, like Prestige). Like I said further up, go to WT:FAC and see if you can do what I described. I really do think you should be able to—that makes sense to me. Try and emphasise how it will help you adhere more closely to the FA criteria. It genuinely does suck to lose important things. But how important will the Prestige system be when people want to look back on the article, 20 years from now? I have no doubt at all that the COD wikia already covers that in great detail—Wikipedia's filling a different niche! — ImaginesTigers (talk)

PS. You don't gotta ping me -- I've watch listed the page and I'll keep an eye out for your comments :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@ImaginesTigers: Are you sure? It's almost been two days! I've replied with a few queries and carried out all the requests, plus trimming, for Development as instructed (if you need to look over it again?). Just those for Gameplay and Reception remain. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Peer reviews do not happen instantly. I'm working on other things right now -- I have an active Featured Article submission going on, and I've been busy. We all have our own priorities, as volunteers. League of Legends's peer review went on for 18 days, and that was a premature close. You're going to have to wait. Some go on for over a month. There's no need to be indignant; there is no deadline. Impatience won't make me go any quicker. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, although I wasn't getting annoyed, just being facetious (the downside of not using emoticons). Nonetheless I was getting a little concerned I was getting too far ahead and there was an increasing amount to catch up on. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I've replied to everything and had a glance back over the article. There are still issues with prose sharpness but I don't have the time to do a full copy-edit for you. If you don't get any future reviewers who particularly focus on the prose, I highly recommend you take it to the Guild of Copy Editors. There's a bit of a waiting time, but ultimately, I think it’s probably needed. The issues I highlighted weren't the only ones; similar examples exist throughout the article, and I can't go through the whole thing. The GOCE exists for that reason, and there's no rush for this. Take it slow and you'll get it through. If you rush, especially on a first submission, it will be even more frustrating in the long-term. Part of FAC is demonstrating to reviewers that you've done all you can to get the article in a good shape. That means taking advantage of the many places on the site that will help you (peer review is one; GA is another; GOCE is a third). The issue with references not being attached to punctuation is still there, though, and the cleaner the article reads, the better shot you have. If Tenyruu is free, maybe they could help you? I had a great experience with them copy editing League (hi, Tenyruu—it’s been a while!). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd also recommend Twofingered Typist; with a peer review, its simply best to reach out to a couple of people, either personally or publicly. With PMTOK, I was suggested to reach out, and asked people on their talk page. This got me six reviews. If it helps, I could read through and give a prose review if you'd like! Panini ^🥪 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Panini!: Thanks for the recommendation. I had pinged three editors at WP:VG who I was familiar with for their work on video game articles but I didn't get any responses back (probably would have had more success going over to their talk pages). An additional prose review from another editor would be beneficial! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately Twofingered Typist has advised he is too busy to assist with the review due to a large backlog of copyedit requests at GOCE. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of work needs to be done over there. You could leave a request, and they'll get to it eventually. I'll comments for you at some point (currently have a GA and FAC up myself). Panini ^🥪 22:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I should note I managed to get in touch with Tenyruu and he is currently copyediting the article. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested copyedit

I received a request from Wikibenboy94 to take a look at this article (also hi ImaginesTigers!). It's in pretty good shape, though some answers to clarify some questions I have would be nice. Wikibenboy94, if you could reply below each point as a separate item (for easier progress tracking) that'd be great. I'll strike them when they're resolved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Multiplayer: I'm going off of a sentence in the "Gameplay" section, but I'm guessing the game has multiple game modes that are multiplayer? Multiplayer can exist as a noun, but usually in the sense that a game has multiplayer capabilities. Would you be fine if I changed those to "multiplayer modes"? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

That's correct, the game has different modes within its multiplayer. If there is prose referring to the overall multiplayer, then "mode" should be used (I can see you've done that for two instances). If its referring to modes within the multiplayer, "modes" should be used. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. That should be all of them. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• The multiplayer began to receive support from December 2016 over the following months to retain player investment [...] Who gave support to the multiplayer content? Activision? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Raven developed and released the content, which according to their statement was for the purpose of keeping players engaged for the foreseeable future. This is the only account we have as proof, but to acknowledge fan speculation, it was believed that the decision to introduce loot boxes was made by Activision to further profit from the game (further touched on in the article), with Raven subsequently forced to comply with their demand. Of course neither company is going to come out and admit whether this was true. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. I took a quick look at the two sources provided and attributed the support from Raven. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• After the trailer, it was revealed that PlayStation 4 users who pre-purchased the bundle edition of Infinite Warfare would be able to play Remastered's campaign 30 days earlier as part of Sony's exclusivity deal with Activision. Already edited, footnote stripped. "30 days earlier" is a relative term that isn't referring to anything right now. I'm assuming the point of reference is the game's release date? Alternatively, the exact date could also work here, but I'm guessing the relative phrase was used to highlight play before official release. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's the 30 days before the release date. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Clarified. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• [...] and attendees were able to play it first with others. This makes it seem like attendees were able to play multiplayer with people who didn't attend the convention, which I assume is not the intended meaning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not prose I wrote but I presume the "attendees" are referring to the publication, even though everyone was an attendee as you say. This just needs to be tweaked. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Removed extra wording. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• [...] according to review aggregator Metacritic. Links preserved. I think the wording is as tight as it can be, but for MOS:SEAOFBLUE purposes, could "review aggregator" be de-linked? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. De-linked.

• [...] additionally, some publications noted that the version bundled with Infinite Warfare was now selling at a similar price to the standalone version. Already edited. I'd be careful with using "now", as it can become dated very fast. Is it still selling at a similar price to the standalone, as of today, 20 January 2021? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

On Steam at least, currently for new copies the bundle is £25 more than the standalone. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Nothing to do here. I'll leave it as is, but I would suggest using phrases like "as of" so that the reference point of "now" doesn't constantly shift and require constant checking to remain accurate. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, you hadn't brought this up in the above but I noticed you'd also put a note querying the use of "determined pricing" in "the determined pricing of the downloadable content and standalone version of the game". To clarify, I just meant the "agreed" or "set" pricing. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done. Ah, thanks for catching that. For the meantime I've reworded it so that the three aspects given can be attributed to Activision's decisions. If that isn't accurate let me know. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Seems to be fine. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking forward to your responses, Wikibenboy94. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for your edits, Tenryuu. I should point out that for the peer review so far only the Development section has seen a revision in response to ImaginesTigers requests. The Gameplay and Reception sections still have yet to be touched up so a lot of the existing prose (namely for Reception) will end up being edited or taken out. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Most of the questions I've had have been answered, but I'll give it one last pass sometime tomorrow. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I made three minor corrections from your last edit. Also I'd forgotten to bring this up at the time but I had two quibbles from your original edits. The first concerned the prose "NPCs was improved to respond more realistically with the environment and vice versa, such as long grass reacting to the player character's presence." You'd moved the first reference for the NPC environmental changes from after "environment" to "vice versa", even though the latter is directly tied in with the player-character environmental changes which there wasn't any mention of in the first source? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

​This one's on me. I've moved the citation back and removed the word "long" as I couldn't find any mention of it in the associated source. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The other was the replacement of the full stop with a comma, for the prose "Some publications noted lingering problems with the artificial intelligence; USgamer wrote "it isn't particularly sophisticated, relying on numbers, rather than cunning to bring you down"[,] and Hardcore Gamer criticized the decision to retain infintely-spawning enemies, and that weapons found on the battlefield were "barebones" compared to those the player starts the level with." This makes it seem like both opinions relate to the AI, but it's clear Hardcore Gamer's doesn't, particularly as they then talk about the weapons (you could argue the infinitely-spawning enemies falls under AI, but this is a stretch). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, then that mention of Hardcore Gamer shouldn't be the last sentence in the paragraph, especially if it was previously mentioned earlier before with the same source. Re-adding it as what is essentially a second mention implies that it follows the idea of [s]ome publications noted lingering problems with the artificial intelligence, and readers are more likely to expect the 1–3 following sources to flesh that idea out. I've gone ahead and integrated that with the other Hardcore Gamer mention. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: The reason it was last was because I wanted the section to begin with the opinions of the multiplayer first and then have it flow into those of the single-player, as well as their's being a minority viewpoint. Perhaps it could be placed after IGN's criticism of the maps? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: It would flow better if Hardcore Gamer introduced the problems with the singleplayer campaign and led into IGN. There's also the option of splitting the paragraph into two, with one talking about multiplayer problems and the other singleplayer, in which case there's a little more leeway as to where Hardcore Gamer can be placed to sound better. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Per my comment a few days ago, I've now extensively revised much of the critical response paragraphs in Reception to minimise the use of quotes and "A said B". Could you please go through it again and let me know if you have any concerns? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: I made a few changes, but other than that, it looks good to me. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: Alright, I think that's everything on my end. If there's nothing else I'll consider my work here done. You might want to check your references, as I think one is running into a definition error in the references list. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: There's nothing more for the moment but eventually there will be an expanded Gameplay section written to illustrate the game's overall mechanics, which is the last target I've yet to begin work on (it just might prove more tricky owing to the game being a remaster). Thanks for all your work across the article otherwise, it's much appreciated. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikibenboy94: In that case I'll consider the request complete. Best of luck! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis

Was just checking in the PR page, saw this, and my friends got hyped. Soo I guess I have to do them a favor (I never did). And I'll give you a favor too.

• (Lead) "It is a remastered version of 2007's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. The remaster was initially released as part of the special edition bundles of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare in November 2016, for PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and Microsoft Windows." It would be better if you combine these two sentences, so it'll be "It is a remastered version of 2007's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, initially released as part of the special edition bundles of Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare in November 2016, for PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and Microsoft Windows."

I'm happy with that, I was never really content with splitting them into two. I think an admin had recommended I did. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Lead) "Activision enlisted Raven Software—who had assisted the development of past Call of Duty games—to develop Remastered"-- link Call of Duty?

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Lead) "New multiplayer content and additional single-player achievements and cheats are also included." Repetitive use of 'and's here IMO. Perhaps adjust it to "New multiplayer content, as well as additional single-player achievements and cheats, are also included."

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Images) Please add alt texts, they help screen reader users conveying the image contents, usually used by the blind.

I presume you mean for the cover image? It did have an alt text at one point, I'll have to see when and why it was removed (might have been me!). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Gameplay) "The campaign is almost identical to the original." What campaign?

 Done Clarified. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Characters) Linking "president" seems like overlinking to me.

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Development) "...increased to 4K for the PlayStation 4 Pro version"-- I think "at" is a good replacement for "for".

I have to disagree here. "At" just doesn't sound right to me. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Development) The Eurogamer source (ref 25) supports the "1080p" claim, so I think it'd be better to move the citation at "The game runs in full 1080p resolution". That way it's less cluttered.

Both mention 1080p (the Digital Foundry one also cites 4K) but I'll move ref 25 as suggested. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Development) Paragraph 3 has ref 1 cited twice.
• (Development) Similar to paragraph 4, with ref [1][27] cited twice.

Regarding the prior two comments, this was due to there only being one citation for two concurrent sentences, but I'll change this if it's fine. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Marketing and release) Maybe it's just me, but I don't think you need to divide it to subsections. They're pretty short paragraphs (2-1-1), and having no subs won't make the prose confusing, at least for me.

I don't really have a problem either way, I'm just not sure if others will agree when it goes to FAC. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Citation 27 is error. GeraldWL 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done by Mikeblas. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll look through the Reception section later on, but overall great work. This one of the GAs that blend well with GA's green icon (if you know what I'm talking about). In the meantime, feel free to participate in my peer review on Wikipedia:Peer review/Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020 video game)/archive2, of course, only if you can. GeraldWL 14:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thank you for taking the time to give me feedback Gerald (and no, I don't know what you mean about the GA icon)! I've provided responses to a few of your comments; anything else will be changed per your suggestions. I did consider contributing to your review of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 due to it being a video game article, a genre I'm more familiar with. If I don't start soon, it will be after I've completed the last hurdle of this peer review which concerns an expanion of the Gameplay section. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the GA icon: GA is green, and the cover art is green, so... it just looks cool to me. Looking forward for comments in the FS2020 peer review; I'll continue commenting on the reception section below. GeraldWL 13:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• This is a trivial comment, but I find it weird that, from paragraph 2-5, the reception is more centric towards IGN, Push Square, Destructoid, and Hardcore Gamer. It just seems... paradoxical, if you know what I mean. Repetitive kind-of stuff.

@Gerald Waldo Luis: The remaster only received about 30 reviews (using Metacritic/OpenCritic as a metric), and those sourced in this article were those few that were deemed reliable sources per WP:VG/S, which is why they've been cited throughout. I've been very restricted by what I can use. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• In all of Push Square's statements, I think it should be added that Joey Thurmond opined such, and not the Push Square staff.

The other articles also have authors, so I'm not sure why Push Square should take precedence. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• In paragraph 3, the citation pattern is 57 -- 59 -- 57-59 -- 56 -- 55. I would remove the first two citations in order to save space; so it'll be 57-59 -- 56 -- 55.

 Done Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Spy-cicle

Not sure if I'll have to time to do a full review but good job thus far. As this is aiming for FAC one criterion is 1.c well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;. I understand there are not that many reviews (I see about 5 reviews currently in the reception section (IGN, Push Square, Hardcore Gamer, USGamer, Destructoid)) for this game but there are some reliable source reviews that have not been incorparated as of yet like Playstation Official Magazine UK (said they reviewed it on MC [4]), Hobby Consolas reliable per WP:VG/RS, Vandal reliable per WP:VG/RS, IGN Denmark, Eurogamer Italy, etc. Also there seems to be some some incorrect used of noted per WP:CRS (Point 3. last bullet point). Keep up the good work though :). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Spy-cicle: I've never sourced a print magazine before so will need assistance on that, and if there is an online version of OPM's review I'm having trouble finding it. I've some apprehension towards foreign-language sources but would use them if I really had to. However, even if they're on WP:VG/RS, some of them may not pass FAC. As brought up earlier in the peer review, I've also found a joint Infinite Warfare/Remastered review from EGM, which is definitely reliable and would surely meet FAC standards. Other reviews from less reliable sources have come from Trusted Reviews (another joint review), Windows Central, GQ, and Thurrott, which I've not received any feedback on so I would appreciate it if you wanted to give your thoughts in the respective section? Initially I was only going to add more reviews in case one or two didn't meet FAC, but as you're the second person to recently highlight the lack of variety then I will look towards sourcing some before then. My only quibble however with the joint reviews of IW and Remastered is that they prioritise talking about the former whilst only really using the latter as a comparison within a few small end paragraphs, so while still usable, the prose on the remaster is very brief. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

OPM, IGN Denmark, Eurogamer Italy will meet FAC souring in terms of reliablity, I do not have much experience with the other two but considering they are on VG/RS certainly probable. Usually for FAC (someone correct me if I'm wrong) you would not have to resort to foriegn-lanauge sources if there are enough English lanuage ones already avaliable but I'm not sure that is the case here (but that's just my opinion I very well could be wrong, I suppose it'll up for the actual FAC reviewers to decide). In terms of combined reviews that would certainly help but considering Remastered was an add-on at the time I'm not sure how much coverage/help they will be compared to the dedicated reviews. Also from those other sources you listed I think GQ would meet FAC reliabltiy standards. But feel free to seek out others opinions, I could very well be too harsh in terms of my interpretation of "comprehensive". Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 03:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia

• Also is almost always redundant, and there is lots of it. See writing exercises at User:Tony1.

@SandyGeorgia:  Partly done Removed 2/3 thirds of examples. Struggled on the rest, but I can always wait for a copyedit. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• https://twitter.com/wendellwobble is not marked by Twitter as a verified account (meaning, anyone could be posting under that account)-- not a reliable source.

That's the assurance I needed for whether it should be used, thanks. I've had no luck finding other sources giving the same information though. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• MOS:LQ should be checked throughout, sample only ... writing "It's nothing short of a profound feat".

 Done I believe the example you gave was correct though. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• WP:NBSP, sample only; [5]

This is not something I'm familiar with doing or where it will be needed specifically in the article. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Suggest bringing in a copyeditor; the lead has convoluted sentences that switch tense (or something-- hard to tell), and sentence length (consistently long) could be varied to hold reader interest:

  Remastered features extensive graphical enhancements, updated animations, remastered original sound effects as well as adding new ones, and retains the original core gameplay while offering a number of small improvements.

  Additional praise was given to the gameplay when compared to later games in the series for what was considered a challenging and grounded single-player campaign, while the multiplayer mode was complimented for its simplicity and freshness.

• In the multiplayer mode, if a weapon is equipped, players now have the ability to taunt their opponents, such as allowing the player to inspect the exterior of their gun. .... "now" ?

 Done Removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

• Have you seen the excellent essay, WP:RECEPTION ?

I'd known of it for a while before the peer review, and read through it properly for when I revised Remastered's Reception section. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Some very good reviewers have been through, but I think a top-to-bottom copyedit would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• Left a GOCE request on Wikibenboy94's behalf. Panini^🥪 18:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)