Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midtown Madness

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

The article was promoted by User:SandyGeorgia 02:36, 8 August 2008 [1].

Midtown Madness edit

Nominator(s): —Giggy

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've worked on it for the last few months and believe it meets criteria. It's a rather short article on a racing video game, which despite positive reviews wasn't the most popular thing in the world, hence there's only limited information available on it. Anyway, I'm happy to make changes based on any comments here, so thanks for reading!

GA review: Talk:Midtown Madness/GA1
WikiProject Video games peer review: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Midtown Madness

Cheers —Giggy 09:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewing only image licensing: looks good. --NE2 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cool, thanks for checking. —Giggy 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "The game puts the player in a vehicle on the streets" I'm pretty sure that the player doesn't actually go in the car. Strange choice of wording anyway.
    • Reworded to "The game is set in vehicles on the streets..."
  • "internet" should be capitalised.
    • I always thought it was a common noun but it seems I'm wrong. Thanks, done.
  • Not sure how to interpret this one—criterion 2b specifies a system of heirarchical headings, yet this doesn't have one.
    • Hmm... that's a problem. I can't think of any other sections/subsections to add, do you have any ideas?
      • It's a strange one, so it will probably need someone more experienced than myself. I just remeber Bibliomaniac mentioning it at the first Melee FAC. Ashnard Talk Contribs 08:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I may butt in completely uninvited: I don't interpret this to mean that there must be subheaders. If you don't have something to create a subsection on, there's no reason to create one, that would be an arbitrary requirement that doesn't add anything. The content is more important. I interpret the criteria to mean that content should be organized in a logical way, with any subtopics presented as such. Just my thoughts on that. delldot talk 21:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the player races against the clock". If there's a time limit, then state that. "Racing against the clock" is a little too informal for me.
    • Reworded to "the player must complete the course within a time limit".
  • "alter the in game weather" Hyphenate?
    • Done.
  • "Besides the change of environment, these alterations can affect the vehicle's performance." A technical one, but wouldn't the addition of rainfall make things more slippery, thus affecting performance?
    • Yes, that's what happens in-game - my reading of the sentence says this, are you reading it differently?
  • "Pedestrians are frequent throughout the city.[7]" Seems to appear randomly from nowhere. If you feel it's worth keeping, consider joining with the sentence referring to how traffic and police can be modified.
    • Removed; it's somewhat duplicated by something in the previous paragraph.
  • Not sure about my knowledge of vocabulary, but what makes "bins, parking meters, mailboxes, and street lights" novelty items?
    • Novelty isn't the best word; my point was that they are done as "eye candy" to make the game look good... knocking them over doesn't help you win races. Can you think nof a better word?
  • "which Clint Keith of Angel Studios said was the design team's favorite mode."" I'd question this statement's relevance; I don't see why such comments should be in "Gameplay" anyway.
    • I couldn't think of anywhere else to put it but it seemed like some OK trivia. Removed.
  • "Angel Studios, who at the time was attempting to sell Microsoft its 3D vehicle simulator. Keith notes Angel Studios were initially". Which one?
    • "Were".
  • If by "take up Microsoft on its offer" you mean "accept it", then write that.
    • Yes, I do mean that, so done.
  • "to reach the finish line before a faster car". "before a faster car" can be saved by writing "first".
    • Good idea, done.
  • "players can choose their car from half of the list of available vehicles" I don't understand—if all the cars are available, then why can the player only choose half of them? It might be just me, but I don't understand this sentence in general.
    • The other half must be unlocked; I've reworded to make this more clear.
  • "Furthermore, Angel Studios announced they were considering releasing a custom map designer, but this eventuated." Giggy, looking at these definitions, this isn't meaning anything to me.
    • Oops, should be "...never eventuated".
  • "IGN rated game's appearance highly" the?
    • Yep, done. Darn touch typing. :-)
  • "though generic looking portions of the city were noted." I'm not sure if "generic looking" should be hyphenated or not. This is a bit repetitive consider "noting"'s already used in the sentence. Finally, saying that something is noted means nothing, although I assume it is negative.
    • I'm not aware of that needing a hyphen. I've fixed up the other issues.
  • "third-person" is hyphenated in the WP article, so it probably should be here. Same for "first person".
    • Both are fixed, thanks.
  • "IGN described in-game narration by Marty Lennartz as a nice touch". "the" before "in-game". But mainly, I'm not sure about introducing such a concept in the Reception, as I thought that would have been mentioned first in "Gameplay". Apologies if I've made a mistake on this.
    • Fixed the "the". Not sure where I can put a mention of him in gameplay; ideas?
  • "pedastrians" Typo
    • Fixed.
  • What does the MobyGames link contribute?
    • Not much, removed.
  • For ref 15, I think a date is found if you click on the following page, in small red text.
    • Thanks for picking that up, added to the ref.

Okay; I'll have another look once these issues have been resolved. Thanks. Ashnard Talk Contribs 14:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps for your detailed review; I have replied inline. —Giggy 01:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some further discussion with Ashnard (as well as a reason for his not being able to support) at User talk:Giggy#Midtown Madness (permalink). —Giggy 10:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. FiringSquad (about page) is cited frequently on IGN; examples [2], [3], more and GameSpot, eg [4]. Does that suffice for FiringSquad?
Still working on Sports Gaming Network. —Giggy 23:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (note: SGN done, see below Jappalang's massive post (thanks! :))[reply]
FiringSquad's (FS) various articles are used as references for the following books:
FS is also referenced in more than 30 scholarly articles,[5] including a European patent for a computer case.
Besides frequent mentions on Gamespot and IGN (as pointed out by Giggy), FS is also:
  • recommended for their AMD K7 550Mhz test report by Impress Watch's Akiba PC Hotline.[6]
  • quoted by Gamasutra for its comment on developers griping about the ballooning development cost of games.[7]
  • noted for its SimCity 4's review in Reason magazine's print edition article on games.[8]
FS is also partnering with market analysis firm Evolution Research to increase the reliability of online sampling of gamers.[9]
I believe the wide and many references to the site in printed and online material could be considered as vouching for FS staff's reliability on matters relating to the video games industry. Jappalang (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The article is clear, thorough, well written, and covers the subject fully with the information available. I can't suggest anything different for the article, so I give my vote thusly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • My comments based on this revision of the article:
    At a glance:

    • The article intro really shouldn't be three small paragraphs, two (or better one) should be enough since the article really isn't that long.
      • Hmm... would you suggest combining the first two paragraphs or something like that? I'm not really sure as to other things to do with it.
    • Overall if the paragraphs throughout the article were the size of the paragraphs in Reception the article would look a bit cleaner.
      • I've combined paragraphs in a few situations and will look to do more where possible.
    • Is that really all the reviews there are for this game?
      • That's all I've been able to find in reliable sources; as always if you can find others I'll try to use them where I can.
    • The image's caption could be shortened, and the image could be enlarged a bit.
      • Enlarged in terms of the uploaded file, or the display size of the the thumbnail? I trimmed the caption a bit.
        • As in the thumbnail on the article itself, just to offset the rather large amount of text.
          • OK, done.

    Upon closer examination:
    Intro:

    • "personal computer" doesn't really need to be spelled out, PC should be fine. Either way, personal computers embody a number of operating systems. Does this game run on Windows, Linux, etc...?
      • I clarified it to "Windows".
    • "As well as" → "Along with"
      • Fixed.
    • Is "Internet" really suppose to be capitalized? I personally treat it like a noun.
      • The Internet article has it capitalised even when not starting a sentence (ie. it's treated as a proper noun). I went by that.
        • Gotcha.

    Gameplay:

    • "modeled on" → "modeled after"
      • Fixed.
    • Is there a wikilink for World's Deadliest Police Chases?
      • I did some searching via google and the searchbar on the left and got nothing.
        Clint Keith and IGN might have mixed up the title, which could instead be Could the show be the predecessor of World's Scariest Police Chases? Jappalang (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it was made after Scariest, actually. They collected all the video with fatalities I think. =\ --AeronPrometheus (talk) 09:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmm... so any ideas on an article for it? —Giggy 10:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Development:

    • "At the start of the game, players can choose their car from half of the vehicles available in the game—the others must be unlocked." seems redundant after the Gameplay section. Perhaps work this into the following sentence as a passing remark. The following sentence is hard to read and might need to be re-written.
      • Thanks, I made some changes as suggested.
    • "eventuated" → "happened"
      • That's a better word, thanks.

    The undercarriage:

    • The code looks solid, there are a lot of unneeded spaces that could be coded out without changing the way the page looks though. Seperating the different teplates at the top of the page would make it easier for other editors to see what they're doing.
      • Certainly not my strongest point, so you're welcome to make any changes you think would make editors' lives easier.

    All in all, the articles structure is solid, you did a lot with small amounts of information. There's only going to be nitpicking between here and FA status. Cheers. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much, I have replied inline in italics. Cheers —Giggy 08:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. I've done some copy-editing, but it needs more. Some phrases remains obscure, for instance: "the game's non-player graphics were poor"; "other 3D entertainment areas, such as the Nintendo 64 console"; "considering releasing a custom map designer"; "unlock half of the cars available in the game". The prose is not yet FA quality. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reworded the first three; couldn't think of a better wording for the fourth one at the moment. I'll give the article another fully copyedit (hopefully within 24h), hopefully that will alieve your concerns. —Giggy 05:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The phrase about the "custom map designer" is still unclear, though now I feel I have an inkling: you mean they were considering including an option for the player to design their own map? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've done another full copyedit of the article, I hope this helps. —Giggy 14:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A simple question: when was the game released? There's nothing mentioned in the body of the article itself, and the lead has the following (to me) nonsensical and ungrammatical sentence: "The game was released on April 30, 1999, and a downloadable demo on January 21, 2001." How was the game released two years before the demo?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by jbmurray (talk • contribs)
          • I was thinking exactly the same thing as you when I wrote the article; why was something labelled a demo released after the game? The only conclusion I could draw was that it was some sort of special edition release... in some cases a beta version of a video game will be released after the real thing as a collector's item of sorts. I haven't found any sources that deal with this indiscrepancy. I also reworded the sentence slightly. —Giggy 08:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Rather odd. In any case, there should be some discussion of the release in the body of the article; at present, there's none. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It was already mentioned in the "Development" section (I didn't want to make a "Release" section with just that, and I've never seen a VG article with such sections (they mostly just keep the info in the lead)), I've added a bit more there. —Giggy 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • The problem is that the following paragraph is all off: "Midtown Madness was released on April 30, 1999. A demo of the game was released for download on January 27, 2001, featuring three vehicles (Mustang, Panoz Roadster, and City Bus), as well as all of the driving modes available in the full version.[12] The demo also included content not available in the final version, such as the ability to send billboards flying.[13] Numerous additional tracks and miscellaneous features were released for the full veresion on the day of the demo's release.[14] Angel Studios announced they were considering making a custom map designer, but this never happened.[15]" I think I introduced some of these problems a few days ago when I was copy-editing, as I presumed that the demo was an early version, and that there was then a subsequent final version. Can we get this straight? For instance, the original version (1999) had ten vehicles; the demo version had only three? Both version had the same number of modes? The (subsequent) demo added stuff with the billboards? What's with these "additional tracks and miscellaneous features"? (NB we have a tyop on that sentence, too.) And what's with the famous map designer, would it have been an add-on subsequent to the demo, that never happened? I don't understand... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • OK, wait, scrap all this. The dates are all wrong. I'm an idiot for not noticing this any earlier. I just realised that all the publication dates for the Computer and Video Games things were the same date; January 27, 2001. Why on Earth would they announce an upcoming demo at exactly the same time? [10]/[11]. With this in mind I checked some more old articles on that site, and found that in several cases, the publication date for stuff that should have been published pre-2000 was way off. I thus don't think those dates are reliable. I'm really sorry for the confusion and can't believe I never picked up on this before.
                    Anyway, I did some more searching, and found the demo was released on May 1, 1999 ([12]/[13]), followed by the real thing on May 27, 1999 ([14]/[15]/review published on that day). Modifying article accordingly. My apologies, again. —Giggy 00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Now (hopefully!) sorted: [16]. —Giggy 00:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Ah, excellent. That does clear things up. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Thanks. Are there any issues still unresolved? (And thus, does your oppose stand?) —Giggy 00:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment are any Category:Streets in Chicago or Category:Chicago area expressways in the game?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only O'Hare Ring Road rings a bell. Not every street is named and I suspect a few of the names are fictional (or else I just don't remember them). —Giggy 06:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Oppose Until further is done on this issue the article is not complete. The current main image looks like South Michigan Avenue with the Aon Center in the background and Auditorium Building on the left. Please do some checking on the streets and highways.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tony, I'll be frank. I have no idea what the streets are. There are very few streets named in the game (I could only recognise one from that category), and adding information to the article along the lines of "the game contains the following streets: ..." would basically be gameguide content. Your oppose might be actionable, but I'm not seeing how it is, nor am I seeing what I can do about it. —Giggy 15:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you date all your refs so I can see when your information is coming from. ref #16 looks like it is a 2001 source and several others should have dates. It seems to me that critical reviews that were contemporaneous with the games peak would mention the realism by describing the streets. I am not asking for OR. I don't know vid games well enough to really judge how well you have exhausted sources. It seems odd that a game would not describe its realistic depiction in a press release that then makes it into several reviews.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The game's location is described to the extent that people have said "Yeah, it looks like Chicago, and it has these notable landmarks..." (landmarks mentioned in article). Nothing more, in what I've read. For the ref 16 thingy see my comment to jbmurray above (do a Ctrl+F for "00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)"). (That applies to all refs from that site.) —Giggy 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment The article is a bit short, IMO. Do video games have trouble finding extensive WP:RS? Can you enumerate the video game WP:FAs. If there are only a few also help me find a few WP:GAs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • O.K. I just looked at the first two games I clicked on from Category:FA-Class video game articles (Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and Halo 2). I am on the verge of returning to weak oppose given that this article is not at a comparable level of detail, IMO. Can you explain why you have so much less text and so many fewer sources? I know we are not suppose to just judge on length, but I am not going to be able to say I believe this is comprehensive in comparison given its length.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Those games were released in 2008 and 2007 respectively; Midtown Madness was released nearly 10 years ago, when there was a lot less in terms of video game journalism (there are two articles on it at WP:VG/M; I've gotten hold of one and used it, still waiting on a response for the other). Both of those games were ground breaking in their fields, were praised extremely highly, and sold extremely well. Midtown Madness got some good reviews but barely sold (I haven't found exact reliable figures but, what I've heard is that it wasn't great...). —Giggy 03:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • SupportI now understand. I forgot to adjust for the pre21st century lack of easily accessible information.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks for your comments, Tony, and for your support. It's appreciated. Cheers. —Giggy 09:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fence Support: If this is really as full as the article can get then I put my vote in the hat... I still think the article intro needs to be one paragraph and not three broken ones. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tested what it would look like as one paragraph; it really didn't look pretty with that chunk of text there. I'll try and fiddle around with it some more. Thanks for your support. —Giggy 08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Needs work on the prose.

    • "Before a race, the player can alter the race duration or the in-game weather (which can affect their vehicle's performance). Additionally, Checkpoint mode allows players to"—Isn't it stronger without the hedgehog "Additionally"? And there's an "additional" further down that may not be necessary.
    • "The city in which the races are set is modeled after Chicago, and players pass notable landmarks such as the "El-Train", Sears Tower, Wrigley Field, and Soldier Field."—I had to hit one of those links to see that those landmarks are indeed in Chicago. I think you need to phrase it so the "and" connection is explicitly logical.
    • Do we need a link for "traffic lights"?
    • "LAN" is linked twice, not distant from each other, either.
    • Order of ideas: "The original idea behind Midtown Madness, according to project director Clint Keith, came to two Microsoft employees while they were "trying to cross a busy Paris street"." Try 2,1,3, rather than 1,2,3, and lose a comma.
    • "Keith notes that"—Unnecessary and laboured. Just remove it.
    • "Ultimately, however, they agreed, and"—Put "however" first and lose a comma ... or two.
    • "Gary Whitta of PC Gamer reported that the representation of the city was mostly accurate, though some landmarks were changed to improve the gaming experience." Ambiguous: you mean the change was on the basis of their feedback, or the real-life landmarks had been changed already?
    • "some" raises alarm bells with me. "though some landmarks". What happens if you just get rid of it?
      • I ended up keeping it in following a reword on the above bullet point; tell me what you think. —Giggy 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Who's the vid game edit guru? It's not a huge job, but attention to detail is required. Tony (talk) 12:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks so much for these comments Tony, I've addressed them. I think Deckiller is the guru; I'll contact him and see how busy he is. —Giggy 03:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deckiller has gone through and done a fair bit of copyediting. —Giggy 23:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I ran through only the lead and the first half of the gameplay section; there's still work to be done, but at least it's a start. — Deckiller 18:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, we want to be proud of this, so the rest needs to be massaged. Please locate word-nerds from vid g. FA edit summaries on hitory pages. They're around, these people. Tony (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've made a few changes to the article to clarify areas. Hope they're moving in the right direction, but please tell me if there are any problems. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 12:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments: Couldn't the lead be expanded to three paragraphs to give some info about development? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll add a bit more meat to the lead now. There was some discussion further up (see Aaron P's comments here and on PR) where we agreed to two paragraphs (instead of 3). —Giggy 13:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a bit better. In my recent VG article I've been drifting towards three paragraphs, but as long as the lead meets WP:LEAD I'm happy. I'm continuing my spotting copyediting, I'll get back to you when I'm done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Further: All the references should have the author and date filled out. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's been done wherever known. (I'm not a fan of having "IGN Staff" as the author if nobody else is stated.) —Giggy 16:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mised refs 15-16 i believe. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not seeing one on 15 (just a release date), and for 16 see my comment to jbmurray above (do a Ctrl+F for "00:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)"). (That applies to all refs from that site.) —Giggy 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on companies. It sounds to me that Angel was the developer, with MS higher-ups calling some shots (which is entirely normal for a publisher outsourcing contracts). The programming, art, level design, etc. appear to have been provided solely by Angel, which makes them the sole developer. Microsoft's involvement therefore does not constitute a role as co-developer. I also find no evidence that "Microsoft Game Studios" is a company, subsidiary or otherwise. It appears to be merely an internal organization and marketing label that Microsoft uses, in some ways comparable to Games for Windows. The lead and infobox could both be cleaned up to state more plainly (and perhaps accurately) that the developer is Angel and the publisher is MS. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm... Microsoft Game Studios calls it a subsidiary, but it took that name in 2002. My copy of the game (came in a bundle released in 2001, I believe) just says Microsoft. I've clarified accordingly. —Giggy 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment by Sillyfolkboy: Maybe i'm being stupid but aren't full dates always supposed to be linked to let the software to the magic changy thing?
    • "To unlock the other cars, the player must win several races in a specific mode" Does this mean just one specific mode or various times in each mode?
    • Why does "World's Deadliest Police Chases" return so few google results? Is that the right name for the show? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nah, per recent WP:DATE changes date linking is optional and not recommended. The software only made those changes for people who set a preference, so for all non-logged in folk it would do nothing and get confusing.
      • I've reworded the statement you quoted.
      • I took the World's Deadliest Police Chases thingy direct from the source cited. The name also comes up here (IGN asks if the game will be like the show). I've never heard of the show but going by those two sources I assume it's real... —Giggy 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments (by BuddingJournalist)
      • "reviewers praised the gameplay, but publications such as Allgame and Total Video Games criticized the graphics." If these truly are notable "publications", shouldn't they be italicized. And if so, why aren't they linked. If not, why are they mentioned in the lead?
        • No, italics is based on MOS:ITALICS; it applies to magazines, newspapers, etc. The two you quote here are websites. I'm not sure why they're mentioned in the lead (and have taken them out), but Allgame has been wikilinked later on, while Total Video Games is just waiting for someone to get around to creating it (see also whatlinkshere). —Giggy 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • " Microsoft received permission from Volkswagen for the Beetle, and told IGN it was planning on using the Ford Mustang and F350,[11][12] both of which ultimately appeared in the game." Why is Microsoft telling IGN this information notable?
        • The information itself is notable, not the IGN stuff - I've reworded. —Giggy 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a consensus/guideline on refering to reviewers by their publication name rather than their actual name? ("Gamspot approved of...") I assume these aren't all editorials.
        • It varies with different article; I usually go with publication name (authors are cited in the footnote, though), others go by author. I don't know of a strong consensus either way and am impartial to changing it if you have a strong argument one way or the other. —Giggy 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "city bus legitimately pulling out at a four-way junction can end your attempt instantly and tragically." How does this fit in with the sound descriptions of the rest of the sentence/paragraph? And what does "attempt" mean?
        • It doesn't - I've moved it up to somewhere where it fits in better. "Attempt" referred to the current race; I've noted that (does it work OK?). —Giggy 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "arguing that it felt as if cars "are often driving" Tense tension. BuddingJournalist 07:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reworded, hopefully better. Thanks a lot for taking a look! —Giggy 08:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments - A racing video game. How did I miss this? Let me add some thoughts, keeping in mind that this is the oldest active FAC, meaning this will be shorter than most of my reviews.

    • Gameplay: "Players have a choice of up to ten vehicles" Ten can be given as a numeral, although editors differ on this. This number happens to be the typical cutoff point.
      • Yep, I generally spell out numbers up to and including ten.
    • "This is a capture the flag style game" Hyphen after flag?
      • Done.
    • Development: Corrections needed. The Beetle in the game was the New Beetle. Yes, I did look that up. :-) Also, the F350 should be F-350, with hyphen.
      • Both fixed; shows how little I know about cars!
    • IGN could use a link here. Other reviewers could also use links, including GameSpot.
      • Linked IGN; the others are linked in the reviews box and thus don't really need links in the reception prose.
    • Reception: "generic looking" needs a hyphen.
      • Fixed.
    • "PC Zone praised Angel Studios for avoiding gimmicks, but instead..." But isn't needed with instead.
      • Fixed.
    • I noticed a complaint above about "non-player cars". How about this: "However, it complained that cars not controlled by the player were lacking in details."?
      • I like it :-) Done.
    • "Total Video Games was critical of the setting; the review declared that cars "are often driving without noticing you at all."" Sounds more like an AI issue to this Gran Turismo 3 and 4 veteran. I can certainly relate.
      • The context, I believe, is that traffic (and sometimes opponents, but mostly traffic) will continue driving despite the obstacles that end up in front of them (such as power poles, police cars, or you). I suppose it is more an AI thingk, reworded accordingly.
    • Comma after and "fast and loose" would help break things up a bit.
      • Done.
    • "Reviews of Midtown Madness attributed most praise to its..." Attributed the most praise.
      • Done.

    Now a couple comments on prior issues: Back in 2001, people who play video games, like myself, were amazed that a city could be recreated in detail. To my knowledge, we weren't nit-picking every street corner like we do today. I do believe World's Deadliest Police Chases was a real show; it sounds like something Fox would have aired. That's it from me. 66.238.217.93 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That was me forgetting to log in.logged in on the wrong window (I need multiple windows for FAC work). Just wanted to clarify. :-( Oh, and the police chase show is real.[17] I knew it was a Fox show. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks very much for your comments! I've replied inline in italics. And yeah, I was pretty impressed with this game's recreation back when I first played it, though I can't remember when that was... —Giggy 07:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After these changes, and one of my own (logical punctuation in a photo caption), I'm ready to support. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments and support! —Giggy 09:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The prose is almost ready. I'll probably give it a final pass before I support. — Deckiller 01:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. — Deckiller 02:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much for your help. —Giggy 09:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Midtown_Madness&oldid=1088822656"