Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/StarCraft: Ghost

< 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 02:43, 16 October 2008 [1].

StarCraft: Ghost edit

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), S@bre


This is an unreleased video game that has been canceled. I asked several weeks ago if it was okay to submit it to FAC, and I was told that it is acceptable. David Fuchs has taken a look at the images, while Juliancolton has taken a look at the sources. In addition to S@bre and myself, the article has been copyedited by Durova, GrahamColm, and David Fuchs. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • To state for the purpose of the FAC, yes, I agree that the images meet criteria; all are low resolution, have appropriate fair use rationales, sources, and information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the intro say "StarCraft: Ghost is a military science fiction stealth-action video game previously under development by Blizzard Entertainment." ? I presume they're no longer actively developing the game. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-6 21:55
That implies the finality that they aren't going to return to it, and since the game's in limbo and has not ever been out-and-out cancelled (Blizzard refuses to do so, but all development has certainly gone in-house), use of the word "previously" probably isn't a good idea. -- Sabre (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it now says "suspended development" to get the point across. -- Sabre (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link checker has a couple of 500 errors to Gamespot. No other comments. Dunno if that's temporary, though I'd suspect it. --Izno (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both have been resolved. Gary King (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support: I did a fairly substantial copyedit, mostly removing redundancies, reducing passive voice, and improving flow. I also added one or two inline comments that I would ask you to clarify. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was a huge copyedit, thanks! I have responded to your comments. Gary King (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still wasn't sure about the year thing, so I changed it to a less awkward wording and what I think is what you're trying to say. Check again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's incorrect; the series begins in 2499, not the game. I've corrected it and tried to make it more obvious. Gary King (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that takes care of that concern. Send me an email, and I'll reply: I've got some print sources I want you to integrate in. They talk about Ghost's parallels to other games, some have support for "highly anticipated", there's some previews you could talk about a little in development, and some other lines to gameplay (tactical capabilities of the player). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sent Gary King (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References have been integrated Gary King (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Note that a large number of the sources are from Blizzard, the developer of the game, so they need to be checked for unintentional bias. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, the Blizzard sources, less the odd press release, are generally from the old Ghost website before it was taken down, and are used to reference the plot and a number of gameplay points. -- Sabre (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, just need to point this out for other reviewers, it's not necessarily bad, just needs to be handled with a bit more care than when using third-party sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Gary King (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a fantastic article, and all the sources look in order. However, the article does not seem to specify exactly why the game was cancelled. The development section explains that the "GameCube version was canceled by Swingin' Ape Studios due to the platform's lack of online support", but does not mention what the rationale was for the cancellation of the PlayStation and Xbox version. Personally I think this is of vital importance in an article about a game for which development has been suspended, so I must (extremely reluctantly) oppose. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-8 23:24
Upon reading through the article again I realized that I missed this sentence: "Blizzard's co-founder Frank Pearce explained that the title was not in the company's focus at the time due to a finite amount of development resources." However, that's just corporate blabber in my opinion. I suspect that there was a very lively internal debate about this decision, probably with a lot of drama, and this article would be much more interesting if there was something on that. I realize that it will probably be impossible to find sources for this, which is why I suspect why it will be very difficult to bring any cancelled game to FA. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-8 23:58
The reason for cancellation of the Xbox and PS2 versions is there: "Blizzard announced in March 2006 that the game is on "indefinite hold" while the company investigated seventh generation video game console possibilities" - ie, to investigate the potential of making it a PS3 and Xbox 360 version. As for the second comment, on the "lively internal debate", that is entirely speculation. We have no idea what Blizzard does internally, or how they came to this decision, and key development decisions are hardly always made known about products that are released. The "corporate blabber" as you put it, is verifiable and relevant, speculation on how they debated coming to the decision to suspend development is not. I can't include sources that don't exist, so the article is still as comprehensive as reliable sources allow. -- Sabre (talk) 00:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't feel that the article as it stands does a comprehensive job of telling the whole story. Yes, you've done an excellent job with the sources that are available, and I realize that my objection should perhaps be discounted because it's not actionable due to the lack of sources. However, the fact is that this game will mainly be remembered for the fact that it was canceled, and I feel that the article in its current state does an inadequate job of describing the circumstances that led to this. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 01:18
David Fuchs has pointed me to this Edge article where Rob Pardo talks about this situation. This is exactly the context I was looking for, so presuming the relevant quotes from Pardo are added to the article, I'll support. Great job, everyone. JACOPLANE • 2008-10-9 03:16
The relevant quotes—the ones on Blizzard being "stubborn" and not executing the game the way they wanted—are now in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Jacoplane, and must add that while reading the article, the tone made it seem like it was a real and released game. Perhaps changing a lot of the present tense used now to the past tense would help this. User:Krator (t c) 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was wondering whether or not to put the article in past or future tense; it was in both before, which was very odd. I made it all into present so that it read much more smoothly. I think it makes more sense, too; the information regarding gameplay, etc. is still valid now as it was before. Gary King (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giggy's comments

  • "under suspended development by Blizzard Entertainment." - I know what this means because I enjoy reminding my StarCraft loving friends that game isn't coming, but it's not really that clear. I'd suggest you split into two sentences and state in the second that development was suspended, or something like that.
  • Campaign image needs a caption that indicates significance (NFCC)
  • Same in the synopsis section
  • "Despite positive reactions from the press when told that Ghost would be available for video game consoles,[18] the game was consistently delayed," - "Despite" implies a connection. I don't see one.
  • "The team consisted of 25 people compared to its original six" - not sure what the original you speak of is...
  • "The game's trailer, comprised of the cinematics team's work, was released in August 2005." - next paragraph starts in July 2004; I'd stick to chronological order
  • "but the game's GameCube version" - I'd remove "game's"
  • "Despite its long development history, IGN noted that the concept of Ghost still held promise" - again, not seeing why "despite" is used; if anything I'd have thought the concept would hold MORE promise if they stuck at it for so long (maybe it's just me?)
  • Wired News should be in italics in ref publishers (check other stuff too, just noticed this one)
  • "When questioned about this, Blizzard's co-founder Frank Pearce explained that the title was not in the company's focus at the time due to a finite amount of development resources." - this is slightly unclear. I looked at the source and I would include the "It never was technically canceled.", then the rest will make more sense.

Giggy (talk) 07:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"suspended development" is explained thoroughly in the lead. I don't think this needs to be changed. The "Despite [...] IGN" I think should not be changed; the concept is so old that there's a good chance that it is "outdated" by now; at least, that's how I see it. The rest are done. Gary King (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Randomran's comments:

  • "StarCraft: Ghost is a military science fiction stealth-action video game under suspended development by Blizzard Entertainment." - Is there a better way to phrase this? "Under suspended development" sounds awkward. Maybe "... and its development has been suspended by Blizzard Entertainment."
  • "Set in Blizzard's StarCraft series" - try "Set in Blizzard's StarCraft universe" (and pipe the Wikilink)
  • "Several delays in development moved back the planned release date ..." - Try "Several delays in development caused Blizzard to move back the release date ..."
  • "Vehicles form a crucial part of the game;" - just drop this. I tend to hate semi-colons as meaningless and messy, and this judgment of "crucialness" doesn't really add anything to the article.

Otherwise, the prose is strong -- it seems like the lead was the main issue. The research appears to check out, and the images have good fair use rationales. The article is very comprehensive, which can be tough when talking about an unreleased game. If you fixed these few statements (not necessarily in the way I suggested), you would have my support. Randomran (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Please check again – thanks! Gary King (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about the "under suspended development" comment? Is there a more elegant way to phrase this? Randomran (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My response to Sabre when asked about this. Gary King (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just a matter of personal taste, then. If someone else suggests you change it, I hope you do. But otherwise, I think this is just a reasonable point of disagreement.

Support: Was already close to featured quality, and my concerns have been addressed. You guys are gonna have a lot of fun re-writing this if they ever resume development and release it. Randomran (talk) 20:08, 9 October 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/StarCraft:_Ghost&oldid=1197949129"