Wikipedia:Peer review/System Shock 2/archive3

System Shock 2

Previous peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm really serious about getting this article up to FA quality, so I could use some FA quality criticism. I've recently copy-edited the article, and I can honestly say its the best its ever looked. But is it good enough? Thanks for taking time to look it over, Noj r (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Automated Review

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

Comments by David Fuchs

• Prose would need massaging to meet FA standards; one of the recurring issues I see is repetitious wording, for example: "Development began in 1997 when Looking Glass Studios approached upstart Irrational Games with an idea to co-develop a new game.[32] The design for the new game was heavily influenced by System Shock, as the development team wanted to create a similar game."
• Audit comma use, for example "Some devices like keypads, gun turrets, and vending machines can be hacked." → "Some devices, like keypads, gun turrets, and vending machines, can be hacked." Either throw them out properly or don't be dependent on them.
• There's a bit too much familiarity in the gameplay section. Reorganizing it might help newcomers to the series. For example, "When the game begins, the player must pursue a career in a fictional military, the Unified National Nominate (UNN). Enlisting in the Marines increases skills in combat and weapons; the Navy provides hacking and engineering training; and the OSA hones player's psychic powers.[14][note 1] After choosing a class and undergoing a brief character development stage, the player begins receiving "cyber-modules" for completing objectives." --this info about physic powers comes out of nowhere.
• The notes section seems to reek a bit of WP:OR. Either remove the explanatory notes and explain inline (which I recommend) or add citations to the notes.
• Does the game manual actually use "mêlée" with all that ornamentation, or just "melee"? If the later, change the use; if the former... depending on what the reviews say I'd still suggest changing it.
• What is the point of the game quotation in the setting? It's confusing and unnecessary.
• In plot once again a bit too much familiarity, e.g. "the elevator shaft" and "SHODAN, the malevolent AI"
• I'd like to see more print publication refs (newspapers, what have you.) If you send me an email I'll reply back with any I find via LexisNexis.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed your concerns. Is it looking better? -- Noj r (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Slightly. Some more concerns:

• There's no secondary sources for the plot section. If you can find a game guide from a reputable source like IGN or GameSpot, that should suffice to sourcing the elements.
• There's no mention of the enemies the soldier encounters (the Many) in the plot summary; it sounds like Polito wakes him up and he breezily fixes the shaft. Add something about encountering the mutated crewmen or what have you.
• For critical reception, it's generally not the whole of IGN's staff or the like who comments (in Legacy and Reception.) Add the reviewer's name, for example see the reception section of Star Trek VI; the critics are named with their publications.
• Since the BioShock and System Shock 3 subsections are so small, why not just merge them into the legacy section?
• File:Systemshock2box.jpg should be reuploaded at a smaller size, preferably no larger than 256px wide. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

All done, except one. I fail to see why plot section needs secondary sources; the game itself is sufficient. I find this suggestion ironic, considering your Myst plot sections contain sparse sources too. Also, you have striked out some comments above, but not others. Am I to assume the un-striked comments are still outstanding? I know your busy, but thanks again. -- Noj r (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Guyinblack25

Lead

• Y I would add what platform the game was released on?
• Y It would probably be better to switch "PC" to "personal computer (PC)"
• Y The info about how it became a sequel to System Shock is a bit hard to follow if you're not familiar with the games. I had to read it a few times to really get it. Maybe try this:
  "The title is a sequel to the 1994 System Shock, but began as a separate game was co-developed by Irrational Games and Looking Glass Studios as a stand alone title, heavily influenced by the seminal 1994 PC game System Shock."
• Y Maybe briefly talk about its connection to System Shock's plot and gameplay.
• Y Minor tweak:
  "The player assumes the role of a lone soldier who triesying to stem the outbreak..."
• Y When describing the gameplay here, it's best to give some basic information besides some terms. "Exploration" tells the layman some info, while "first person action" doesn't.
  "Gameplay mainly consists of first person actionshooting and exploration elements, ..."
• Y The part about the rumor seems to come out of nowhere. I get why you put it in there, to touch on the legacy, but some extra context would probably make things flow better.

Gameplay

• N If this game has similar gameplay to the first one, I'd consider a link at the beginning of the section to give the reader some more context.
  {{see also|System Shock#Gameplay|l1=Gameplay of System Shock}}

The key word here is "similar". The gameplay is similar but not enough to warrant a link in my opinion. -- Noj r (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Y "The player uses various weapons to..."- "Various" is a vague term. I know why you used that wording—I use it sometimes too when I really shouldn't—but I think more descriptive terms would help the reader understand the gameplay more. Like "The player uses projectile and melee weapons to..."
• Y Trim redundancy:
  "...player to develop a variety of useful skills."
  • Y Also, I think "useful skills" is a bit vague. Do they improve navigation, fighting, shooting, etc?
• Y Tweak- just sounds better to me, but others my disagree. Feel free to do what you like.
  "When tThe game begins, with the player must pursue achoosing a career in a branch of the Unified National Nominate, a fictional military, the Unified National Nominate."
• Y Trim redundancy- "Each" implies "its own":
  "Each branch of service introduces its own unique skills:"
• Y This sentence confused me. "The marines are combat experts and augment weapon proficiency;"
  • Y Are they experts at combat and augmenting weapon proficiency? The thing that confuses me is when you remove one of the parts, only one makes sense.
    • Y "The marines are combat experts;" Makes sense
    • Y "The marines are augment weapon proficiency;" Sounds like something is missing.
  • Y Also, the first word following a colon should not be capitalized unless it's a proper noun.
• N I'd use the full name of "OSA". It may be a trivial game detail, but just giving the reader an acronym, especially when you've give the other two branch names, can confuse them more.

Curse Irrational and Looking Glass, it is never explained what OSA means. People have chided me about this before; I added a footnote to explain, but Fuchs (PR comments above) believed it was original research, so I removed it. I don't know what to do, have any suggestions?

• Y The third paragraph jumps into information about completing objectives with out giving the reader context of why they do this. Are the objectives military training, special missions, random events, etc?
• N What are "O/S units" and is there a better term to use?

Same with OSA. I'm believe it means "Operating System", but there is no way to prove this. -- Noj r (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Y Not sure about this, but I think rearranging this sentence will be better. (passive voice vs active voice)
  "The player is able to hack Ssome in-game devices, likesuch as keypads, gun turrets, and vending machines, can be hacked."
  • Y I believe "such as" is preferred over "like" in formal writing.
  • Y Also, what is the benefit of hacking? How does it help the player?
• Y The info about the green and red nodes in the hacking minigame doesn't make much sense to me. I'd either expand it more (like do you have to move the nodes around?) or remove the description completely.
• Y A few things
  • Y Trim redundancy- "All" is implied by the basic statement.
    "All nNon-melee weapons degrade..."
  • Y I'd combine the two sentences together to make them less choppy and use fewer words.
    "Non-melee weapons degrade with use and eventuallywill break. if they are not regularly Rrepairinged them with maintenance tools ensures they continue functioning."
• Y Trim redundancy:
  "Different kinds of ammunition types exist..."
• Y Tweak to better clarify:
  "...psychic powers that assist the player can be learned that perform a variety of actions, such...

Plot summary

• Y I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the title, but I'd say "summary" is implied and just "Plot" will work.
• Y I also don't think two subsections are necessary. There's nothing wrong with the set up, but I don't see much added benefit to keeping them separate.
• Y The first sentence of "Prologue" seems off. Can't quite put my finger on it though. Maybe switch the semicolon to a comma, but there are already a lot of commas in the sentence. Not sure about this one.
• Y Some trimming to tighten the prose.
  "The ship is undergoingon its maiden voyage, escorted bywith the Rickenbacker, a military starship serving as an escort."
• Y Clarify- Did the main character join the Rickenbacker during the maiden voyage or before it left its port?
• Y Trim redundancy, two is already implied from the previous sentences.
  "...the two ships respond to a..."
• Y The first sentence of "Story" could use a brief statement to keep things out-of-universe. I think combining the "Prologue" and "Story" into one section would remove the need for anything being added though.
• Y The first paragraph of this section seems a bit choppy compared to the rest of the article. Maybe combine a few sentences together. Not a necessity though.
  • Y
    "...who guides him to safety before the cabin depressurizes. Polito, and demands the soldier to..."
• Y The in-universe time frame is not necessary here because you've already established it earlier.
  "...space vessel, Citadel Station, forty-two years prior in System Shock."
  • Y Also, saying "the previous game" or something similar instead of "System Shock" will help keep an out-of-universe perspective.
• Y Too many pronouns in this sentence. And trim down:
  "SheHODAN informs the soldier that she has been posinged as Polito to gain histhe soldier's trust and is responsible for the creation ofcreated the Many."
  • Y Don't know if these edits make the sentence lose it's original meaning though, so edit as you see fit.
• Y Trim redundancy. "Together" is implied by the rest of the sentence:
  "Together, SHODAN and the Many escaped..."
• Y Trim to strengthen prose and meaning:
  "SHODAN had been cultivatinged these artificial..."
• Y Just sounds better to me:
  "..but they had evolved out ofbeyond her control."
• Y The part about the transmission device seems to come out of nowhere. I get why you worded it that way—to mention something without really mention it—but I think it can confuse more than help. I'd either take a sentence to explain they first attempted to control the ship remotely, or leave it out completely. I don't think much would be lost if it's left out.
• Y I'd reword this sentence to give it more meaning:
  "While en route to transfer the program, tThe soldier proceeds to complete his task and briefly encounters two survivors..."
  • Y Not sure if this is an improvement though.
• Y The three middle paragraphs of this section all start with "After VERB-ing". I'd reword 1–2 to reduce repetition.
• Y The last paragraph is rather short compared to the others, maybe add it to the preceding one.

Development

• Y The sentences in the first paragraph seem kinda choppy. But I don't really have any suggestions to fix this. :-/
• Y The wording and flow of the first two sentences in the second paragraph seems awkward. Maybe try something more concise: "Irrational pitched the game to several publishers, and Electronic Arts—who owns the rights to the Shock franchise—responded by suggesting the game become a sequel to System Shock."
• Y Repetition
  • Y "Development team" is used too much. I'd mix it up some to create more variance in the prose. Repetitive wording can be less engaging to readers. Some can be just "team" because there isn't any other team discussed in the article. Other synonyms I normally use are "staff" and "the developers".
  • Y "Shock franchise" is used twice. The second time isn't really necessary because there's no other franchise discussed in the article.
    "The development team agreed, and story changes were made to incorporate the Shock franchise's elements."
• Y Maybe "complete" instead? To trim down on the word "development".
  "The project was allotted one year for developmentto be completed."
• Y The sentence about the Dark Engine confused me at first. I think tacking this on the end with a semicolon would clarify things. "; the engine was original developed for Thief: The Dark Project, which was released nine months before System Shock 2."
• Y The info about the Ultima Underworld seems out of order. The first instance of the game should be wikilinked along with the mention of it being another Looking Glass Studios project.
• Y The paragraph about "horror" doesn't flow well. I'd add in "The first,"; "second(ly),"; etc. before the respective sentence items to give the paragraph more structure and make it easier to follow.
  • Y The sentences about "vulnerability" seem off to me; mainly redundancy. I'd combine them into one sentence.
    "The development team also feltSecondly, vulnerability was created by having a fragile character ia key factor. Instead of making the player very strong, they focused on a fragile character."
• Y This statement is rather bold, perhaps tweak it to clarify it:
  "Levine sought to challenged this notion..."<.div>
• Y Trim redundancy. The game's title is not needed because there's no other game being discussed:
  "Several problems were encountered during the development of System Shock 2."
• Y The next couple of sentences about the problems seem awkward to me. Though I not sure what to suggest.
  • Y Clarify- I assume the team was comprised of staff from two companies? Unless the companies were very small, then never mind. The word "company" just invokes the image of a very large group to me.
  • Y Is there any other kind of tension between people? Trim "negative" as redundant.
  • Y The sentence about people leaving and being inexperienced seems mismatched. People leaving sounds like a result of the tension, but people being inexperienced sounds like a cause of the tension. Maybe reorder things and combine/split up sentences.
• Y Maybe switch "In a postmortem feature," → "In retrospect,". Just sounds better to me. Plus the info about where it comes from is already in the citation.
• Y Switch acronym for full name: API → Application programming interface
  • Y Technology terms like this can be tricky. They are normally great bits of detail that you may not find elsewhere, but, unfortunately, they may be too technical for general readers. Introducing such a term normally requires you to briefly explain it as well. Sometimes it's best to keep some details generalized—just saying it was unfinished is probably enough.
• Y Sound too informal with some redundancy, maybe try this:
  "Sometimes working with the engine code was advantageous andIn contrast, working on the so closely with the engine's code allowed the development team to write additional engine features."
• Y Clarify- "One particular setback remained political..." The wording sounds awkward and I'm not sure what the intended meaning is. The removal was caused by political motivations? Also, who asked? Maybe who asked will clarify that better.
• Y The info about the development time and budget sound like the would be better served at the beginning of the section, probably the first sentence. I've seen it done in other FAs and I think it helps create a framework in the reader's mind.
• Y Clarify- Why was the patch released? I'm on the fence about this as it's probably fine left unanswered. Reading the part of the sentence just struck me as coming out of nowhere. Not a big issue though.

Critical reception

• Y I would rename this section to just "Reception". That's just me though.
• N (Another one of personal preferences.) I've never been a fan of the star rating graphics, but there's no policy or guideline prohibiting them. I just think having all numbers is more uniform.

I like the stars :P -- Noj r (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• N The info about the "game of the year awards" would be strengthened with references from some of the specific publications.

I dont have any information about the awards. They were simply posted on Irrational's website. -- Noj r (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Y Switch "applauded" → "lauded". "To applaud" generally means to clap, and reviewers can't clap in their print reviews.
• Y Add in "Trent Ward" to the prose about IGN's comments.
• Y This is something editors are kind of split on. I personally think "Reception" sections should use quotes as little as possible, but I know others prefer to not mess the original author's words. It may depend on what reviewers you get at FAC. I will say this though, I've seen others say quotes need to be minimalized in an article, but I've never seen anyone say that an article needed more.
• Y Switch acronym to full name: "CVG" → "Computer and Video Games", maybe "Computer and Video Games magazine". If you put (CVG) right after it, you can call it that in the remainder of the article.
• Y There's no need to explain what the degradation system does as this was explained in the gameplay section.

Legacy

• Y Elaborate/clarify: "System Shock 2 is regarded by some as..."
  • Y Who are the "some": gaming press, gaming websites, gaming publications, etc?
• Y Same thing about the quotes as above. I would paraphrase and summarize.
• Y The second paragraph uses "SHODAN" a lot. Since only one character is being discussed here, you could use some pronouns: it, the character, etc.
• Y The sentence about wanting a sequel looks choppy compared to the others in the paragraph. Maybe combine it together with the first sentence.
  "System Shock 2 has amassed a substantial cult following over the years.amongMany fans, many which have demanded a sequel."
  • Y "Over the years" seems redundant. The basic statement already implies it and you'd only need to add a time frame if the cult following stopped.
  • Y Also, "substantial" seem kind of hollow here. I don't it's needed, but leaving it in should be fine.
  • Y Maybe wikilink cult following for those that may think it could refer to a fanatical social group.
• Y I don't know if a mod title like Rebirth would need to be italicized or not. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting) and WP:VG/GL don't specify. Just something to keep in mind if any asks you about it.
• Y I believe "high-quality ones" should be "higher quality ones". The term "high-quality" doesn't give much information to the layman by itself. I think it makes more sense to use a comparative term with "low-polygonal models" used earlier.

Sources

• Y I would prepare a rationale of reliability for the following sources, just in case. Such information include links to pages about their editorial and reliability policies and other reliable sources that have used them as a source of information. For the blog, providing a page that lists the author's statement of identity and a page crediting them in the game.
  • Techspot
  • Game Revolution
  • xemu.blogharbor
• Generaly, it's good form to preemptively provide this information when you start the FAC.

Sorry, but it's been a long day. I'll post more comments tomorrow and probably over the weekend. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

All done. I hope it looks better. -- Noj r (talk) 00:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I'll try to finish the rest of the article this week. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Part three. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Part four; almost done. :-D (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC))

Done. Overall, the article is looking pretty good. It is very informative and well sourced. I certainly enjoyed the read. Good luck at FAC. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC))

 Done I will prepare some rationale for the mentioned sources. Thanks again for this wonderful review. I am glad you enjoyed reading it. : ) -- Noj r (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)