Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Wars: Rogue Squadron

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 SandyGeorgia 22:27, 21 February 2009 [1].

---

Star Wars: Rogue Squadron

Nominator(s): --Torsodog^Talk

I've been working on this in conjunction with a couple of other editors for a couple of months now. In those few months the article has been overhauled completely and has gone through through a PR and a GA. I've been tweaking it for the past week in prep for this FAC. Hoping it has all been worth it! Let 'er rip, everyone. --Torsodog^Talk 21:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:Star-wars-rogue-squadron.jpg - This fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder.
• File:Rogue Squadron gameplay.JPG - This fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder. The "purpose of use" is too vague. Why does this particular image need to be included? What are the particular elements in this image that the reader needs to see? How does this particular image help the reader understand specific elements of the game?

• I'm not seeing any critical commentary in the article about these elements of the game. According to WP:NFC, screenshots from software need to be accompanied by "critical commentary". Awadewit (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed image and put it up for speedy deletion. --Torsodog^Talk 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that image, its the only one that actually shows standard gameplay within the game: that alone should significantly increase the general reader's understanding of the topic. If necessary, another screenshot could be produced that in addition to typical gameplay, highlights other features given specific commentary in the development or reception sections. -- Sabre (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• What kind of shot were you thinking of specifically? Awadewit (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I wasn't really thinking of any particular kind of shot. The current one doesn't seem to be that great from a commentary point of view, but another shot could be created to highlight key elements of the graphics that received praise or criticism, or elements of gameplay such as artificial intelligence behaviour if that could be conveyed in an image. For instance, a fresh image from the standard third-person view with draw distance in it (and a bit more activity, such as a dogfight or something) would help show points of commentary and standard gameplay, making what was two images into one. I'm thinking rather generally here though. -- Sabre (talk) 15:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid I can't offer any suggestions, as I don't know anything about this game. Perhaps other reviewers could offer some assistance? Awadewit (talk) 19:55, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• In the IGN review, they talk about the game's great models and textures. For example:"The 3D ship models are absolutely gorgeous and even put those seen in previous PC and arcade Star Wars titles to shame. From the accurate decals and Rebel markings down to the R2 units... and exhaust flames." He goes on to talk about the landscape and enemy models as well. Would including this in the reception section be enough to constitute a fair use for this image? --Torsodog^Talk 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'd add that sort of information regardless, as its good reception info. See if you can't get a gameplay screenshot that provides a nice view of those X-wing features to replace File:Rogue Squadron gameplay.JPG. Try to get some action in the background as well, having other ship models to contrast with never hurts. -- Sabre (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming IGN is a reliable source (I have no idea), a screenshot based on Torsodog's info seems like a good idea to me. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just taken this screen. I think it better illustrates a lot of what we have talked about here. What does everyone else think? --Torsodog^Talk 00:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Just to clarify for Awadewit et al.: The view is usually centered but often shifts around when flying such a maneuverable craft. :)

It shows many of the praised elements (even R2); it doesn't have the distance fog so we'd still need the cockpit shot as well. --an odd name 01:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

• File:Rogue squadron naboo.JPG - This fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder. Instead of saying that "it remained hidden for an unprecedented amount of time", could we be specific about the amount of time and provide a source for that amount of time being unprecedented? The source should be included on the image description page.
• File:Rogue Squadron cockpit.JPG - This fair use rationale needs to list the copyright holder.

I look forward to resolving these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the copyright holder to all four of the images. I also beefed up the rationales for two of them as you requested. I hope I have addressed the issues adequately! --Torsodog^Talk 20:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

See response above. Awadewit (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

• "Naboo Starfighter wasbecame unlockable"
• "years between the films"
• "sixteen different planets"
• "Rogue Squadron released toreceived positive reviews"
• "thoughbut its"
• "any multiplayer modes" – should probably just be "a multiplayer mode"
• "more than 1 million copies have been sold worldwide" – as of when? also, the "1" should be "one" per the MOS
• "a quicker" – "a faster-paced"?
• "any other available"
• "players' craft" – "the player's craft"
• "different levels" – perhaps "several levels" instead
• "Players' performance" – "The player's performance"
• "athe level's three"
• "Alternatively, the levels could be all unlocked via password." – "Alternatively, all of the levels can be unlocked via password."
• The article jumps back and forth between referring to players as singular and plural. I suggest sticking with singular. So "players to" becomes "the player to"
• "wasis also included"
• "were not told" – a bit ambiguous as to what they were not told
• "help to hide"
• "using a GameShark or ProAction Replay" – provide a small phrase to describe what these two are
• "that unlockedunlocks the"

Okay, that's the lead and Gameplay sections. Gary King (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ce help. I addressed all of the fixes you suggested. I had a couple people comb through the article, but I guess there are always things that can be fixed. I also changed all of the "players" throughout the article to a singular noun. --Torsodog^Talk 19:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• "characters' conversations"
• "The game then moves several years in the future—specifically six years after the Battle of Endor." – perhaps – "The game then moves into the future, six years after the Battle of Endor."
• "the now-rebuilding"
• "It was decided" – by who?
• "to the fans' favorite"
• "Pak allowedallows"
• "drivers utilizesuses both"
• "graphics."" – punctuation goes outside of the quote per WP:PUNC for this incomplete quote, for here, and elsewhere in the article
• italicize magazines such as "GamePro"

Okay, that's Synopsis, Development, and the first paragraph of Reception. Gary King (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Like this? --an odd name 22:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not all quotes have to have the punctuation outside; "better"," should probably be in, as well as "resolution"." for sure.
• "best sound effects, best voice work and best overall sound" – these awards should be capitalized if they are the official titles; and if they aren't, then use the official titles.
• "The addition of these modes would have extended Rogue Squadron's replay value beyond its medal reward system." – an opinion, so it should be associated with a review
• "counterpart—its aggregate score on Game Rankings being 5% lower." – "counterpart, with an aggregated score on Game Rankings of 80%." – I'd prefer to see the actual score rather than a relative one, especially for scores
• "review iswas not"
• "and retained that spot throughout the remainder of the holiday season."
• "the UK, the" – "the United Kingdom, the"
• "the game was released mid-January where itand debuted at number two on the sales chartsas the second-best-selling game of the month, ahead of Ocarina of Time."

Okay, that's everything. Gary King (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I got those. For that "The addition of these modes..." point, I'm not sure if this sentence I wrote:

• GamePro's review called the omission a "serious, unforgivable sin"; Schneider believed that while adding these modes would have extended Rogue Squadron's replay value, the game was still enjoyable for its medal reward system and large amount of secrets and unlockables.

was correct; I welcome any thoughts on that. --an odd name 23:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay better Gary King (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say a quick thanks to odd name for taking care of Gary King's suggestions while I was busy this weekend. Nice work everyone! All suggestions were great, and the article is looking even better now. --Torsodog^Talk 19:34, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "released for Windows on December 3, 1998, with a Nintendo 64 version released four days later." "with" is a weak connector, try "released for Windows on December 3, 1998, and a Nintendo 64 version was released four days later."
• Link "Star Wars universe" to [[Star Wars galaxy].
• "As the player progresses through the game, they are " "they" sounds kind of strange here when referring to "the player" (even though it is technically correct)
• "Star Wars: Rogue Squadron takes place in the fictional Star Wars galaxy."-->Star Wars: Rogue Squadron is set in the fictional Star Wars galaxy.
• "The game's first fifteen missions occur six months after the Battle of Yavin depicted in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and prior to the events of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back." Very confusing, sounds like the missions happened while the the Battle of Yavin was being "depicted". "prior to"-->before.
• "with an opening crawl resembling"-->with an opening crawl that resembles
• "After briefly encountering the Empire here" Where is "here"?

It's actually pretty good. I will probably support after finishing my review. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrected everything except the "they" remark. What do you think about using "he/she" instead? And what's with the "actually pretty good"?? Don't act so surprised! ;) P.S. Thanks for the help on my Tokyo list, and thanks for the help here! --Torsodog^Talk 05:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, just messing around :) I will return for the rest later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a. This is quite rough, and needs a thorough copyedit before it can go any further. A sample of what I found just in the lead and first heading follows. These are only examples—please get someone to go through the whole text.
  • "... the game primarily takes place between the events ..." Suggest "the game is set primarily between the events"
    • Done
  • The Development section isn't represented in the lead.. why?
    • It is subtly integrated into the lead. For example, I discuss the Expansion Pak and its comic book inspiration. And the article's lead is also structured based on all other video game FA, which do not discuss the game's development at great length.
  • "As the player progresses through the game, they are introduced to sixteen missions, each with objectives that the player must complete to pass the level." Subject/verb agreement. Also, confusing.. "introduced" to missions? Levels? Are they missions or levels?
    • This was discussed a bit above. I changed to "he/she is". Also just changed missions to levels to avoid confusion.
  • "These missions can be roughly divided into four categories" Same issue as with "game primarily takes" above.. don't insert that adverb there. Revise please.
    • I don't really understand what your issue is with this sentence. Do you just want "roughly" moved after the verb? If so, done.
  • "Five craft are offered to the player to control" Why not just "The player can control five craft"?
    • I'm pretty sure this sentence has been CE a few times by other editors until it became what it is now. I just changed the sentence to your suggestion instead.
  • "Each vehicle has its own characteristics that consist of primary lasers, secondary weapons, speed, and maneuverability." Speed and maneuv. might be characteristics, but lasers certainly are weapons, or features, etc.
    • Greatly simplified: "Each vehicle offers a unique armament arrangement and varying degrees of speed and maneuverability."
  • "When collected, these bonuses improve a craft's weapons or shield ..." We've not been told about a "shield" yet. What is a shield?
    • Changed to "durability".
  • "The player's performance is tracked throughout the game." Make active voice and describe how/where/who.
    • Changed to "The game tracks the player's performance." Not quite sure what kind of description you want, however...
  • "Each benchmark consists of five categories: completion time, enemies destroyed, accuracy, friendly saves, and bonuses collected." These mean very little with no context or explanation.
    • Changed to "completion time, number of enemies destroyed, shot accuracy, number of friendly craft and structures saved and number of bonuses collected."

--Laser brain (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've had several people go through the whole text. IMO, I think you are being a bit harsh when you say the article is "a bit rough." Honestly, you corrected the most complicated part of the article, and I thank you for your help. I believe the other sections are more straight forward, and I would appreciate if you could quickly look though those as well and provide suggestions as well (if you have time, of course!) --Torsodog^Talk 06:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Harsh? No, I'm sorry. You're getting constructive criticism—that is the purpose of FAC. As I said, this article needs an effective copyedit, and I will not delineate all the issues here. FAC is not a peer review/copyedit service. --Laser brain (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no need to get annoyed... Really not that big of a deal. Like I said, thanks for the help. I've requested the help of user:scartol for copy editing. Please check back when he is finished. --Torsodog^Talk 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks much improved—struck my oppose above. --Laser brain (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• Check of the development section
  • "that many considered the display a tech demo." Source says "As Tosti told us, the demo on display at the show was little more than a tech demo" Tosti != "many"
    • Changed "many" to "Brett Tosti"
  • "Despite the incompleteness of the game's E3 demo, the response from gamers was largely positive." Need to do more than just switch a few words when summarizing a source. Other sentences from this section also skirt quite closely to the sources.
  • "During development, Factor 5 appealed to Nintendo..." Missing citations for the beginning of this paragraph.
    • Added GS source
  • "As with the game's plot, LucasFilm was hesitant to allow..." Illogical connector, seeing as how the sound designer has nothing to do with the plot.
    • You are right, it is a clumsy connecter, but not illogical. I was trying to connect the fact that LucasFilm didn't allow to draw from the films' plot or the films' audio. I simply removed the connector all together as it was unnecessary anyways.
  • "a large quantity" Vague.
    • Changed to "over 80 minutes"
  • Besides the mention of E3 1998, there's not a single other date to establish some temporal context of the game's development (and when during 1998 was E3?). When did development start? You have "At the time," and "At that time,"; too bad readers have no idea what that means.
    • I do not know the exact time development started. I added release date of Shadows to give the readers some reference of time. Added "In May 1998" for the E3 sentence.
  • "Stember quipped..." I don't see how this is in any way a quip. BuddingJournalist 16:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It seemed to me that Stember was trying to be humorous with this remark. I'll just change it though to "stated" though. --Torsodog^Talk 17:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
  • In my cursory look on LexisNexis, there was an AP article that mentioned that the game was part of a bidding war between Nintendo and Sony over the rights to license video games prior to the release of Phantom Menace. Seems like something worth mentioning. BuddingJournalist 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow, sounds interesting! I couldn't access the exact AP article, but I found a similar article detailing the same agreement here. I will integrate it into this article ASAP. Thanks for the heads up! --Torsodog^Talk 20:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I've done a thorough copyedit of this article. Hopefully my efforts will assuage some reviewers' concerns about the prose. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 20:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose: Image criterion. I'm not seeing how File:Rogue squadron naboo.JPG is anything other than decorative; how does this significantly help readers understand anything beyond "this craft became unlockable"? The captions for the other images are asinine and lack info on what readers are actually seeing; that reviewers commented is all well in good but I haven't the foggiest what gameplay aspects are being represented, et al, which are much more important components for reader understanding, I believe. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because the image is not meant to only depict gameplay, it is meant to show readers the much commented about graphics (ie, player craft, enemy craft, etc.). Therefore the caption explaining that the image is displayin an important and much-talked about aspect of the game is relevant and not "asinine" at all. I can be more specific about what kind of graphical detail was praised, if you'd like. --Torsodog^Talk 23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The critical reception is all well and good, but the image doesn't tell me anything about what's going on; all it's doing right now is letting us say "graphics are pretty". Tell someone who's never played the game what gameplay elements are being shown; otherwise move the image to reception because it's not aiding reader comprehension where it is. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Fuchs Gary King (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you mostly take issue with where the image is placed? That I can completely understand. I moved the image to the reception section and made the caption a bit more specific. Let me know what you think! I also removed the Naboo Starfighter image for now because I tend to agree there is really no need for it. I requested Awadewit's opinion on the issue also. --Torsodog^Talk 07:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Now you have two non-free images illustrating different elements; in Elcobbola's words, this is an opportunity for consolidation; an image showing both the fog and the visuals would mean only one image is needed rather than two. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Man, images are the bane of my Featured Existence! I tried to consolidate with the distance fog image already by showing both the cockpit view and the distance fog. The other image shows the game's models as well as gameplay. Do you think there is a way I would be able to keep both images by mentioning all of these elements in the captions? If not, I might simply removed the distance fog image as it is much easier to take that screen if I need it in the future, and I believe it to be much less important than the other image. --Torsodog^Talk 16:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments: I don't see why both images cant be used. Why cant you move the first image back to gameplay and then have the caption explain the HUD and such. After all, this pic is necessary because it is the only one showing actual gameplay. The other image gives readers visual comprehension of distance fog, a common criticism of the game, and is reason to be included. It seems straightforward to me and doesn't need to be complicated. -- Noj r (talk) 01:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

But it's feasible the images could be combined to meet minimal usage as proscribed by fair use. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all but one none-free image. I believe this image to be the most important of all the non-free images because it depictes the game's core gameplay. Sometime in the future I will possibly try to incorporate distance fog into this image, but as it stands I believe all image concerns should be resolved now. --Torsodog^Talk 02:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I had always felt that Torsodog's first edits to the article vastly improved it and made it a GA or better; I urged Torsodog to send it up the "ranks" ("!ranks"?) from there to a GA or FA. I was surprised by all the Opposes and comments given through its PR, GAN and FAC; I've thought it was always a well-written, well-referenced, and engaging read, but I learn every day.

In any case, I think it evenly covers its four main topics (Gameplay, Synopsis, ...), doesn't have sourcing problems, uses non-free images sparingly, and reflects what I've experienced playing the game and seeing the sources. It's an example, in my eyes, of great article development for one about a well-known game. (I think my involvement in actually writing the article has been minimal—mostly copyedits, rewording, and technical stuff—but if not, consider this a late co-nomination or something.) --an odd name 04:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Support I would've supported this after my review back in December, so there's no reason for me to not support it now, especially after the recent improvements.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check the toolbox; there are no dabs but a couple dead links. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edited to switch to wayback archives for Game Rankings pages, and trimmed the truncating FindArticles url. There was a connection timeout message regarding an Allgame link, but a second check didn't reproduce it. --an odd name 06:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Game Rankings has been down for a few days for maintenance, it should be up again soon. -- Sabre (talk) 12:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.