|
I'm back to look at the prose, and perhaps one or two other things I stumble across.
- "Tony Hawk's Underground is a skateboarding-adventure video game with elements of role-playing gameplay, part of the Tony Hawk's series." — This is an unfortunate start to the article. I've seen FAC opening sentences with just a date and no mention of the developer or publisher, and lead sentences with no date and just the developer or publisher, but I'm not sure I've ever seen one with neither. Compounding its sketchy coverage is the too-extensive gameplay description, which could and should be discussed later in the lead. (Plus, the final clause makes no grammatical sense with the rest of the sentence.) Remember that the first sentence is all important: it's what defines the article scope, what shows up in the Google preview and what 90% of your readers will see.
- Reorganized that whole first paragraph. Tezero (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an improvement. However, the opening line now says (unintentionally) that the Tony Hawk's series was published by Activision between 2003 and 2004. It should be fine after one more rework. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "and Activision published all versions" — Activision's role has already been mentioned with respect to the first versions, so why double up? Honestly, since Activision published them all, the company could be mentioned in the opening sentence and removed from the rest of the paragraph.
- "A sequel, Tony Hawk's Underground 2, came out in 2004." — Perhaps better suited for the end of the section. Also, "came out" is very informal.
- A sentence rewrite suggestion:
- "Underground
largely follows is built on the skateboarding formula of previous Tony Hawk's games: the player explores levels and completes goals to move on, and the bulk of the game is spent skating around and while performing various kinds of skateboarding tricks." (Italics signify an addition. Also, wikilink skateboarding trick.)
- "customization; the player" — Grammatically, this should be a colon. However, since you just used a colon in the previous sentence, it might be better simply to restructure this one.
- Done...? I'm not really sure what the best wording is. Tezero (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "the player cannot select a professional skater for the main game" — I don't understand what this means. What is the "main game", and can you select professional skaters outside of it as the sentence suggests?
- You select other skaters in a couple points, like when creating the team videos. It's not a major part of the game. How would you suggest I phrase this? Tezero (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest removing the qualification from the lead entirely. Mention that the player creates a custom character and leave it at that. The nitty-gritty of using professional skaters can be left for the Gameplay section. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "instead creating" — This is a dangling participle. It could be the player, the professional skater or the game "creating".
- "The plot follows this character" — Which character? The feet? The skateboard? The player? These are the only options from the preceding sentence.
- "strong theme of individuality, which was manifest in the rich customization options" — "strong theme" and "rich customization" are probably NPOV violations. I'd certainly describe them as such.
- "Real-life professional" — I find "real-world" to be a more encyclopedic and grammatically stable phrase than "real-life". I'd suggest changing all of the article's uses of "real-life" to "real-world".
- "their experiences to the plot's script" — Who are "they"? Also, "the plot's script" is a bit redundant, and could probably be rephrased to "the plot" or "the script".
- It's the skateboarders; who else would it be? How could they contribute Neversoft's experiences to Neversoft? Done the second one, though. Tezero (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "acclaimed; reviewers" — Another semicolon that should be a colon.
- "praised it for its ability to appeal to a variety of players" —> "praised its wide appeal".
- "walking and driving vehicles" — Suggests that you can "walk vehicles".
- "PlayStation 2 incarnation" — Using "incarnation" as a synonym for "SKU" is very informal. Should be changed to "version", "release" or similar.
- "centered around" — Admittedly a common error, but it still needs to be rewritten "centered on".
- "while jumping, grinding on rails and edges, or freestyle skating, as well as wall jumps" — Grammatically: "while jumping ... as well as wall jumps". I'm not sure what this means, but this sentence needs to be broken up for clarity. It's a skateboarding game—let the skateboarding aspect breathe a little.
- "the player falls with their board not landing on the ground" — I'm not sure how to read this. Is the player falling with the board? Also, the player does not fall: he or she remains seated on the couch.
- "such as by climbing" — Another dangling participle. Who is doing the climbing?
- "In addition, each level" — Drop the "in addition". If sentences make sense together, it's rarely necessary to use "also" or "in addition" to join them. Something I learned from Tony1.
- "various cities and other locations" — I'm not sure I could have been less enlightened. Which cities? And what is an "other location"?
- Removed "and other locations", but I don't feel it's appropriate to name all of the cities right now because they're covered in Plot. Tezero (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "the game's narrative before moving on" — Reads as though the narrative is "moving on".
- "tasks are wide-ranging and include" — Just telling us what they include gets the point across—no need to preface with "wide-ranging".
- "also houses" — See "in addition" above.
- "who will provide the player with an optional goal that unlocks a trick" —> "who provides a sidequest that unlocks a trick".
- "Due to the integration of goals into the story and the levels' large size" — First, "due to" means "caused by"; not "on account of" or "because of". Second, this reads: "goals into ... the levels' large size".
- What's the difference between "caused by" and "on account of"/"because of"? Tezero (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- See here. It's a difference in grammar: "due to", like "caused by", modifies a noun or pronoun; "because of", like "on account of", modifies a verb. You don't say, "The park was closed caused by rain"—or, "Deaths on account of hot weather". As a rule of thumb, if you should only used "due to" if "caused by" makes sense in the same context. That is not the case with the "due to" I pointed out in this article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooooohhhh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, that was a weird word choice. Also, swapped the ordering of the "size" and the "integration". Tezero (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "professional skaters for the campaign" — What's a "campaign"? And, again, can you select professional skaters elsewhere?
- A campaign is the story mode of a game; I've switched to that wording. And no, you can't; I've fixed that, too. Tezero (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "There is also a level editor in which the player creates skate parks" —> "A level editor allows the player to create skate parks".
- "traditional skate park elements" — Such as? Not everyone knows their half-pipe from their grind rail.
- "can also change" — Another pesky "also". Do a CTRL-F search of the article and remove all but the most critical instances of "also" and "in addition".
- I've just gone ahead and removed all of them; all were replaceable with alternate phrasing or simply nothing.Tezero (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "
Additional customization modes exist for tricks Tricks, skateboards, and level goals that can be placed in either existing or custom levels may be modified as well."
- "Characters can level up their stats" — Paragraph should be split here. This sentence and everything after it make no sense with the discussion of customization earlier. The whole thing should probably be moved up and merged with paragraph 2 of Gameplay.
- "include a series of multiplayer minigames" — "a series of" could be dropped without loss. I'm noticing a lot of redundant phrases like this in the article—a surprise after Sonic: AtS, which was very clean.
- Done. Hmm, I guess one reason could be that AtS had already gotten two reviews by the time you came around, whereas you're the first here. I may also have been more impatient with pushing this from GA to FAC because (1) IPs have kept changing minor information about the soundtrack and release dates back and forth without reason and (2) I'm considerably busier now, both on- and off-Wiki, than I was then. Tezero (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's all for now. It definitely needs work: I see lots of unnecessary words and vague and/or labored phrasing. Nothing that can't be fixed—this is no Sleeping Dogs. Anyway, writing an article without a GA or FA model is always hard, and I think you've done a solid job on that front. Just let a bit more skateboarding "cruft" seep into the Gameplay section. I'll be back later (or tomorrow) with more prose comments. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JimmyBlackwing, I've fixed/responded to everything. Tezero (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "which had acquired Neversoft in 1999" — Given the large gap between 1999 and 2003, I'm not sure why this is needed.
- What does the gap have to do with it? Admittedly, though, I mainly added that to lengthen the paragraph. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "during the main story" — The professional skaters appear to be in the main story (given the sentence added to Gameplay), so this should be rephrased.
- "While previous games in the series had included character editors, the individuality theme motivated Neversoft to implement face-scanning for the PlayStation 2 version" — I can't figure out how these two things are related. What's the contrast? Also, "character editor" is a bit arcane for a non-gamer.
- The contrast is that Underground included both a character editor and face-scanning rather than just a character editor; I've cleared that up using your favorite word, "also", so if you have a better suggestion for restructuring, tell me. Reworded "character editor". Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "version; sending an email of one's face to faces@thugonline.com would get the player a texture for their character's face" —> "version: if the player emailed a photograph of their face to faces@thugonline.com, the company would digitize it for use in the game".
- "true adventure game" — What's true about it?
- "the developers used storytelling and exploration to distance their product from mere lists of tasks" — I'm not sure what a "mere list of tasks" is, or how a game could be just a list.
- "At the time, the console version's levels" — The game's date has not been mentioned yet in the article body, so "the time" is ambiguous.
- "Neversoft made sure to introduce the player to walking around on-foot and climbing along ledges during the first few missions of the game so that the player would become familiar with the new mechanics quickly and immediately notice Underground's differences from previous Tony Hawk's titles." — Quite possibly the longest run-on I've seen at FAC. Needs to be punctuated and/or chopped up.
- "realistic and relatable for the most part, they added driving missions as a source of silly enjoyment" — Most people can relate to driving, and "silly" is not the first word I'd use to describe it. I'm a bit baffled—any clarification?
- Erm, it's not something you'd normally see in a skateboarding game. I've reworded to "an enjoyable diversion", though, as the main point they were trying to get across was that driving is different from the main gameplay, not from real life. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "to push boundaries of how much freedom could be expected from a skateboarding game" —> "to push the boundaries of freedom in skateboarding games".
- "Neversoft wanted novice players to
be able to develop skills for higher difficulty settings on Too Easy while still enjoying progressing through the story."
- "Throughout the series' history, the team had reliably created extremely difficult missions in each game" —> "Neversoft had included extremely difficult missions in each previous Tony Hawk's game".
- "While the game's cutscenes are all animated in 3D, the real-world skateboarding teams were given original live-action video introductions so that players could understand the teams as well as possible before selecting one to join." —> "While the game's cutscenes are animated in 3D, the team recorded live-action videos to introduce the real-world skateboarding teams, so that players could better understand each team before selecting one to join."
- "Neversoft invited professional skaters to its office to ask about their experiences becoming known in the skateboarding world, then compiled elements of these tales into an extensive script for the game." —> "Neversoft asked professional skateboarders about their early experiences in the sport, then compiled elements of those stories in the game's script."
- A rewrite:
- "The game was promoted with a playable demo at Microsoft's 'GameRiot' event held at Lollapalooza in July 2003
, with a demo available for play."
- Done. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "used its engine to model the real-world skaters' performances" — What does that mean?
- "immediately playable in the main game" — What is the main game, and what is it contrasted against?
That's it for now. I'll finish the rest tomorrow—time got away from me tonight. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why bother using the 1UP review for that single line, especially when most of it ("the plot's focus on an amateur skater as opposed to professionals") just repeats what we already know?
- 1UP's a well-known website that wrote a full review, so I don't see why that should be left out. I would have extracted more from it (and I still can if you want); it just seems like 1UP kind of reiterated the same points as everyone else, but in somewhat less interesting and specific language. And yes, we already know that the game focuses on an amateur skater, but until 1UP shows up, we don't know that any critics cared about that. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems kind of like undue weight, then. I say just axe 1UP. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ben Silverman of Game Revolution
, however, described it the game's plot as a 'silly' cross between those of the 1980s films North Shore and Gleaming the Cube, but he praised it for making the giving context to level goals flow naturally and keeping enough distance between various the skill unlocks."
- "overwhelmingly positive" — Not really a neutral description.
- "and animation, calling them 'nearly flawless' and praising the realism they brought to the inherently fantastical skateboarding genre" —> "and animation: he called them 'nearly flawless' and praised the realism they brought to the inherently fantastical skateboarding genre".
- "In contrast, IGN's" — In this instance, "in contrast" should be replaced with "by contrast". See here.
- "customization, summarizing" — Dangling participle.
- "identified the level editor as 'extremely well-designed' and contributing" — There's a strange tense shift here.
- Technically it's not a tense shift since "contributing" is modifying "level editor", not Williams, but it's a little stilted anyway so I've reworded it. Tezero (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "scenario mode whose" —> "scenario mode, whose".
- "though he praised the diversions their gameplay modes brought" — Extremely vague.
- "and Underground, overall" —> "and that Underground, overall".
- "while joining in in criticizing the walking controls and mechanics" — This entire clause should be removed.
- Oooookay... done. I don't see why, though. Tezero (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "
Simiarly, Famitsu reviewers noted that, although the game's fast pace overall speed of the game gave it a high degree of difficulty can be extremely challenging at times, the high difficulty provides it gave a true a sense of accomplishment when jumps and tricks are performed correctly to the player who correctly performed jumps and tricks."
- Done. Tezero (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "mediocre, though not unmanageable" —> "mediocre but manageable".
- Reworded with ", albeit"; using "but" shifts the focus to "manageable", which conflicts with the overall tone of the paragraph. Tezero (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "perform a large variety of tricks" — Lots of vague and unnecessary words. Should be changed to "perform tricks" or "perform X tricks", wherein X is the relevant number. (Alternatively, just list some of the tricks that can be performed—it adds interest and specificity to the article. Something I did a few years ago on Flight Unlimited.)
- For now I've just removed it, because adding trick names to the middle of a sentence like that would create a huge run-on, especially if I did it for all the categories of tricks (jumping, grinding, etc.). If you've got a suggestion for reorganization, I'm open. Tezero (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a few more sentences should be dedicated to the core mechanics. Explain in more detail how the player uses surfaces to trick; put in some info on the tricks you can perform. Nothing exhaustive—just give the reader something to chew on. I haven't played many Tony Hawk games (only bits of 1 and 3, years ago), but I've played enough to know that the real meat of the series (e.g. finding good surfaces, picking up speed, executing certain tricks) is brushed over too quickly here. I understand that it's hard to dig down and describe the core mechanics of a genre or franchise without a model, but the description of gameplay in this article isn't quite there yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 08:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice. I'll be back soon with the next part of my review. Also—I think the expanded gameplay discussion is a big improvement, but the descriptions of control inputs (i.e. "holding the analog stick in one direction and one of two buttons") are a bit too specific. It's better to give a more general summary of the controls, as in the fighting game FA Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars. Other than that, good. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I must admit, I'm not seeing how this is any more specific or crufty than Tatsunoko vs. Capcom's explanation of the controls - I mean, that article has almost a whole paragraph on them, and both this page and that one just refer to the joystick and nonspecific buttons. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The gameplay issue is still not quite resolved; see below. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be now; see below. Tezero (talk) 03:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "some criticism" — In the majority of cases, "some" is a dead word: it adds nothing. That holds here.
- I don't agree; just "criticism" implies that it received poor reception overall, or at least that most people complained about its difficulty. This isn't the case; it is IME (and presented in the article as) a notable minority viewpoint, like how some people, but certainly not most, dislike Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire for Hoenn having too much water or Super Smash Bros. Brawl for the "tripping" phenomenon. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some" does not modify "criticism" in the way you intend. The word indicates an almost entirely indefinite amount of something, which makes it correct (or "correct") when used for any non-total amount. You could, potentially with a straight face, say that "some water" got into Fukushima Daiichi during the 2011 disaster—and you'd be correct, because less than the entire plant was submerged. In any case, "criticism" signifies an amount indefinite enough to avoid the suggestion of universal or near-universal dislike. However, if you want to guarantee clarity, then just explicitly mention who criticized it and how big of a deal they made out of it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- They didn't get into that much detail. Whatever; I've just removed "some". Tezero (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The game's basic gameplay mechanics and structure were developed quickly at first, but this process was not finished by the end of August 2003, only two months before its American release." — I don't understand this at all. I think it's 2-3 sentences begging to be free.
- The development was fast at first, but it slowed down at some point, because only two months before release, even the basic gameplay mechanics weren't finished. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I know I'm the one who recommended "faking" citations in dire situations, but use of OPM and Play here is far too obvious: no author names and only one disembodied quote from each review. Use this to fill out the OPM citation and add more quotes. Play's review isn't available online or in my magazines, but I'd be willing to scan the EGM review if you want to use that as a replacement. Alternatively, just use GMR, Game Informer or GamePro.
- Fixed OPM issues and swapped Play for Game Informer. Tezero (talk) 03:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "specifically praised Neversoft's characterization of real-world skaters and the narrative's pervasive sense of humor" — If he singled out those things for praise, then it goes without saying that he "specifically" praised them. Also, I'm not sure what the "characterization of real-world skaters" means.
- Well, he praised basically everything about it; those were just the parts he took care to elaborate on his love for. "Characterization of real-world skaters" means the funny, slightly edgy way they're portrayed in the game as characters. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- What? Says who? You didn't refute my argument; you just contributed the equivalent of a parent saying, "Because I said so." Tezero (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't aware that we were arguing. You explained your decisions to me without clarifying them in the article. As a result, even though my own confusion over the passages has been resolved, no one else has been clued in. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a few more, JimmyBlackwing. I may be able to find an internet cafe or other Wi-Fi location for a couple hours during the next few days, in which case I'll fix up as much more as possible. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good; I look forward to seeing your changes. Regarding the discussion of controls, I think the difference between Tatsunoko vs. Capcom and this article is small but critical. A comparison:
- "Players use controller inputs to perform attacks; the most basic attacks are executed by pressing one of three attack buttons: light, medium, or strong. Players may augment basic attacks with joystick or control pad directional inputs; for example, a standard strong attack can become a sweep when the down input is added. Basic attacks can be strung together to perform combos."
- "The player performs tricks via combinations of analog stick and button inputs. By holding the analog stick in one direction and one of two buttons while jumping, the player can perform either a flip trick (such as an impossible) or a grab trick, such as a benihana or nosegrab."
- TVC uses a clear, basic example of control input for non-gamers; THUG's discussion of the controls is more complex ("holding the analog stick in one direction and one of two buttons while jumping") and it isn't formatted as an example. I haven't played the game, but perhaps: "For example, the player initiates an ollie by [performing input]." Then you're free to make generalized comments—mention that adding more complex inputs (no need to specify which) to an ollie converts it into a flip or grab trick, and so forth. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked; see what you think. I really don't think it's that specific, though; it just gives a very brief summary of how to perform each kind of trick without even specifying buttons. Tezero (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose review from JimmyBlackwing, part 2
edit
I can already tell you that the plot section is too long. For example:
- "Pro skater Chad Muska is in town for a skate demo, which the player and Eric are impressed by. Later, Muska is impressed to see the player's skating and suggests seeking a sponsorship from a skate shop."
This could be reduced to:
- "Professional skater Chad Muska is impressed by the protagonist's talent, and he suggests that they seek a sponsorship from a skate shop."
Likewise:
- "The closest shop belongs to Stacy Peralta, who will not sponsor the player if their video is shot locally. Suddenly, Eric implores the player to leave with him, as he has incurred the wrath of drug dealers while retrieving a stolen skateboard, and the two set off for Manhattan."
Reduced to:
- "The protagonist fails to get sponsored by Stacy Peralta's nearby shop, and then travels to Manhattan with Eric, who is on the run from drug dealers."
- Not sure I like the implication that the reader should already know Stacy Peralta has a skate shop, but done. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Finally:
- "Once there, they complete the sponsorship video over Manhattan's exotic locales; Stacy is impressed and tells the player and Eric to attend the Tampa AM skate event in Tampa, Florida."
And:
- "There, they shoot a skating video that impresses Stacy, who tells the protagonist and Eric to attend a skate event in Tampa, Florida."
Apply a similar hatchet throughout the section. As it stands, the plot summary is crufty and, as a result, kind of a slog. I'll move on to Development.
- "it was the first Tony Hawk's game to star an amateur skater in a true story mode rather than simply a team of professionals" — Two points. First, what is a "true story mode"? I naturally read this as "true-story mode", which makes no sense. Second, this clause states: "star an amateur skater in ... a team of professionals". I'm not sure what that means, but it sounds disturbing.
- Added the verb "star" to disambiguate. As for your first point, it's a story mode with a plot as opposed to just "complete these tasks because we said so, then move on" - basically the difference between the first Professor Layton game and the rest of the series. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A rewrite suggestion: "Underground was created with a theme of individuality: it stars an amateur skater in a true story mode, whereas each previous Tony Hawk's game had starred professional skaters and had lacked a plot." JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I like that, even if it is longer. Done. Tezero (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "archetypal locales" — "Archetype" is generally used to describe a concept rather than a place. Try "iconic".
- Well... the concept is what I meant. They were trying to find a locale in each city that represented it, not necessarily one that was iconic. It's like the difference between Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Aneurysm" to represent what grunge sounds like, or why they might have chosen a generic New York City street instead of the Statue of Liberty or, assuming the game was in development by 2001, the Twin Towers. Tezero (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Done. Tezero (talk) 04:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Most paragraphs in Reception start with original research: "The story was well received", "The graphics and art received mixed opinions" and so forth. Unless there are sources to support those claims specifically (e.g. "The plot of Tony Hawk's Underground was praised widely by critics", "Critics were split on the game's visuals"), they can't be included.
- Don't have much time for editing right now, but I strongly disagree that this is original research. I can say confidently and without checking that it's found in more video game FAs than not (and they were passed with this, mind you; it wasn't added afterwards), and since it's not making exceptionally bold statements like "every single critic loved the soundtrack", I don't see a problem. Tezero (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware that it's common in VG FAs. However, it's still a policy violation, and so I've started to target the practice in every FAC I review. The fact of the matter is that it's original research to summarize critical opinion without citations, unless you do it in the lead. If the removal of paragraph openers makes the section too disparate, in your view, then perhaps implement subsections as in Flight Unlimited. (This format originally appeared in Anachronox, before its reception section was gutted to prepare for FAC. It deserves to catch on, I think.) JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing you may not be considering is that they serve as cogent topic sentences. I mean, Flight Unlimited is a very nice article overall, but the Reception section has, like, zero flow. It's just opinion after opinion with nothing to bring it together. It's true that, in the case of such topic sentences as can be found here and in many, many other articles across all forms of media, there are not citations for these summaries of the available critics' opinions on these topics, but who would contest it as being false? Remember, not all statements on Wikipedia have to be cited, only challengeable ones. This is why, for example, we're allowed to cite games themselves for uncontroversial details and why language articles are allowed to use examples that aren't explicitly given in any source (because that could be plagiarism). It would be OR to summarize from four positive reviews of the game's graphics and three negative ones that their reception was "mostly positive"; it would not if the score was six-to-one instead. Tezero (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm aware of the cogency issue; it comes with the territory. What you're describing is still OR. Here's the policy page:
- "The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged."
- None of your sources imply that the critical reception as a whole reached any particular consensus on the game's aspects. It's unlikely that such a source exists at all. The paragraph openers are OR and should be removed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You know me, I can't stand inconsistently applied standards for VG articles, so I'm taking this to WT:VG so a firm consensus can be reached one way or the other. Tezero (talk) 03:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't forgotten about this nom, and I'm back, though I do have a huge amount of homework to finish up. For now, I'll leave them in until the discussion finishes. It looks like it's heading your way. I'm becoming more accepting of the prospect of, say, introducing paragraphs with some kind of explicit declaration of the topic that isn't a full-on topic sentence, e.g. "Regarding the game's graphics," instead of just jumping cold into one opinion after another (which I firmly believe is, policy or no policy, completely against common sense and basic, grade-school-level writing skills - no offense; this goes for every time I see it). I dunno. Tezero (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The licensed soundtrack and sound effects, however, were better received." — More OR.
- Still waiting for official consensus on that one. Tezero (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And I agree that Sequel needs to be expanded.
That should be it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The size of this review is getting absolutely out of control. Tezero: if it's okay with you, I'll start archiving solved points with {{collapse top}}. That will keep things easier to follow for both of us. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, by all means go ahead. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Just a few more issues to hash out. The biggest thing left is a trim for the plot section. Once everything's done, I'll run through one last time with a bit of copyediting. I won't let the OR thing prevent me from supporting this nom—consensus takes time, and I've already put you through the wringer long enough. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut some excessive details and reworded some sentences for conciseness in Plot. Got any opinion there? Tezero (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
