Wikipedia:Peer review/No Russian/archive1

No Russian

This has definitely been one of my favorite articles to work on. Very rarely do you get an individual level in a video game worthy of having its own article. Having passed its GA Review, I'd like to take it to FA status. As this would be the first video game level article to be nominated for FAC, I'm still not entirely sure on where the bar should be set. Any and all comments would be appreciated. I'm a firm believer in the saying "You scratch my back, I scratch yours", so if you review this article, I'll gladly repay the favor.

Thanks, Famous Hobo (talk) 04:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

First, I just want to say that I think it is awesome you are aiming to bring something completely different to FAC. If this is successful and gets promoted to an FA in the future, it could really set a precedent and bar for future editors for working with video game level articles. So definite hats off to you on that alone. My comments are below:

• At the end of the first paragraph of “Gameplay and plot”, I would specify that “no penalties” refers to the Achievement system and the overall game completion.

Done, but I'm a little worried that "overall game completion" might been seen as jargon. Any ideas on how to better phrase that?

I agree with your point. I would avoid the phrase "overall game completion" as I agree that it sounds too jargon-like. Maybe something like "their achievements and progress in the game are not penalized." Maybe "progress in the game" would be a simpler way of putting it, but you can let me know.

• I have not played this level, so I read through the Kotaku article that you linked here to better inform myself about it. I found it interesting that the option to skip the level is “Yes, ask me later”. It might be helpful to add to your article that you may return to this level and play it even if you decide to skip it. Again, I have not played this level or game so I may be misreading this so feel free to correct me.

Not exactly. Every level in the game can be replayed, including "No Russian". I can see how that might be interesting if you had previously skipped it, but the Kotaku article never mentions this, so I can't include that bit of information. I could possibly cite the MW2 Instructional handbook, as it does mention that you can replay any mission, it just doesn't mention that you can replay "No Russian" even if you had skipped it.

No worries, it is fine as it currently stands then. I apologize for my mistake. I just wanted to make sure :-)

• According to the Kotaku article, the message about skipping missions comes at the beginning of the single-player campaign. I would clarify this in your article, as I initially believed the option was made only available directly before the level itself, and not at the beginning of the campaign as a whole.

Done

• The first sentence of the “Development” section should be clarified and revised. You clearly identify Fukada as the lead designer for the game, but the part about Alavi reads somewhat awkwardly to me at least. How was he more involved in the level’s creation? It may be better to say something along the lines of he was the main game designer responsible for creating/developing the level.

That was something that annoyed me about that PC Gamer source I used. In the interview, it says "No Russian was originally the brainchild of Steve Fukuda, but Alavi was behind almost every aspect of its creation, from scripting Makarov’s team to motion-capturing the animations used for dying civilians." It briefly mentions that Fukada thought of the idea, but then it cuts to how Alavi was involved in almost every aspect. It doesn't mention why Alavi was given the level, or why Fukada didn't flesh out the idea more.

Oh, that makes more sense. I understand how sources can be really annoying. I have read through the sentence again with your comment in my mind, so it is fine as it currently stands.

• Could you clarify the last sentence of the first paragraph in the “Development” section? Alavi said he did not base the massacre on real terrorist attacks, but then you say he based it from news articles. This seems a little contradictory to me, as the news articles I am assuming would be covering real-life terrorist attacks. I could be missing something really obvious here though so again feel free to correct me.

Ah yeah, I can see how that might be confusing. That sentence has now been clarified

Thank you for the clarification.

@Famous Hobo: Everything else looks really strong. I look forward to seeing this be nominated for FAC. Let me know if any additional comments or clarification is necessary. Hope you found this to be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thanks for the comments! I've addressed all of the issues. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Sorry for the delay in my response. I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if you would like additional comments or clarification. Also, feel free to message me when you put this up for FAC, as I would definitely be willing to help you out with that. Aoba47 (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If possible, could you help with my peer review here? I know that it is outside of your interests, but I would greatly appreciate any help. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte

• Why isn't Steve Fukada mentioned in the lead?
• Journalists have since discussed the importance of "No Russian" to the video game industry. Should this be "in the video game industry"?
• It begins with the player walking out of an elevator with four gunmen,. Is the comma necessary?
• The level is very graphic, as screams can be heard throughout, and the injured crawl away leaving blood trails. How about The level is very graphic due to the screams that can be heard throughout, and because the injured crawl away leaving blood trails.

Hope these ideas help, I might find some more things to comment on more tomorrow. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Anarchyte! The only comment I didn't address was the Steve Fukada comment. The reason being is that Fukada, according to the source I used, was barely involved in the level's development. I think I mentioned this to Aoba47 earlier, but the exact quote from the source was "No Russian was originally the brainchild of Steve Fukuda, but Alavi was behind almost every aspect of its creation, from scripting Makarov's team to motion-capturing the animations used for dying civilians." It doesn't mention Fukada at all for the rest of the No Russian part of the interview. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the development section, I just included Alavi, since he was by and large the most involved in the level. Famous Hobo (talk) 21:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Maplestrip

As promised on Discord, I'll have a look at it :)

• In the gameplay/plot section, it says "The events of "No Russian" are also mentioned in ..." – I am unclear what the purpose of the "also" is in this sentence, as it the article doesn't say that the events in "No Russian" are mentioned in any other games. Shouldn't it just be "The events of "No Russian" were mentioned in ..."?

Yeah, you're right. Changed

• The level was conceived by Steve Fukuda, which makes me assume that he wrote the level in order to fulfill the three mentioned tasks. But the article isn't written in that manner, and I recognize Fukuda isn't even mentioned in the Magical Wastelands article (is that even an RS? Looks like a blog). This leaves it very unclear what Fukuda's role was exactly. I mean, the PC Gamer article mentions that he has playtested the level, but in what manner did he "conceive" it?

For Magical Wasteland, since it is a blog, it normally wouldn't be considered a reliable source. However, the blogpost is an interview with Alavi, and was cited by Kotaku and PC Gamer. As for Fukuda's role, I think you read the top part of the PC Gamer interview. The top part of that page is talking about All Ghillied Up from COD4. Fukuda didn't playtest No Russian (at least not to my knowledge). Fukuda simply came up with the idea. Here's the quote: "No Russian was originally the brainchild of Steve Fukuda, but Alavi was behind almost every aspect of its creation, from scripting Makarov's team to motion-capturing the animations used for dying civilians." That is the only mention of Fukuda, and it doesn't go into further detail as to why Fukuda didn't do anything else with the level, or why Alavi became so heavily involved.

Ah, in that case, the use of that source seems proper. However, Fukuda is actually mentioned twice in the PC Gamer article: "Steve Fukuda sat down at my desk to play the first minute, and he replayed it for half an hour, ten different ways, and had fun each time. For me that was a real success." My use of the word "playtest" might have been an overstatement. I hate how difficult it is to understand what Fukuda did add to the level, but I'm not going to complain about that too much if the sources simply aren't there.

I think your still reading the wrong part of the article. The information about "No Russian" starts at the line "It starts not with a bang or the crash of a door being kicked in, but a whisper." Before that Alavi is still talking about All Ghillied Up, which was continued off the first page.

Ah, that explains my confusion! I was unaware it was the second page of an article. Sadly, this means we know even less about Fukuda's involvement...

• Fukuda's name is misspelled, btw.

Whoops...

• I think theguardian.com should be written in italics if you refer to it specifically as a creative endeavor ("writing for theguardian.com" rather than "as posted on theguardian.com", where it would seem more as a service). There was a whole discussion on this topic recently over at WT:VG and honestly, it can be rather confusing in these cases ^_^;

Done, I don't understand the rules either

• "However, when journalists were able to play "No Russian" ..." seems very odd if you do not know how video game journalism works... and honestly, it even looks weird if you do. Weren't the journalists able to play the level very quickly? It's the fourth level of the game, after all. I don't believe the line is currently sourced.

I guess? I'll ask some of my friends if they have any suggestions, because I don't know what else I can say.

• I have an issue with the grammar at "and instead make killing civilians an integral part to the story, and that the events leading to their deaths were organic.", but I'm not sure how to fix it. Maybe just remove "that"? I honestly really don't know...

Yeah, that does look awkward. Let me see what I can do.

I reworked that sentence. Hopefully it reads well now

Looks much better now :)

In general, I think this article looks amazing, and I don't have many comments on it. Save for Magical Wasteland, all the sources look good and are well-implemented. Lead section looks great, the image is perfect, everything seems good. Then again, I don't have much experience with FAs, so take all that as you will. ~Mable (chat) 10:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: Sorry for the late response. Responded to all of your comments. Will finish the remaining comments tomorrow. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks good :) ~Mable (chat) 12:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: Responded to a few of the issues. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Scribolt

Interesting choice for an article, not many levels are notable enough but this one certainly is. I've got a few comments on structure and general wordsmithing, I don't really know the process and didn't want to start making alterations directly into the article, but I'm quite happy to if you want to see what they might look like.

Lead

• Too long in my opinion. It contains the entire plot, in only slightly reduced form from the plot section. I'd suggest removing the playable characters name and everything after group.
• It should mention early and prominently why the level is notable. What makes it notable is the controversy it generated, so I'd suggest removing the history of the how the level was created and focus on the fact that it caused a media frenzy.
• I'd also make a few copy edits in there as well, 'cautious towards the levels content' is not great.

Gameplay & Plot

• Remove gameplay from the heading, it only contains plot details.
• 'killing any remaining civilians' to 'killing any civilians they encounter'. Killing any remaining implies that they exectuted every living person in the airport
• 'The level is very graphic due to the screams that can be heard throughout, and because the injured crawl away leaving blood trails.' Remove. I find this a bit sensational. The level is not any more graphic than the rest of the game. If you really want something like this, you'd be better off focusing on the fact that is 'shocking' or 'disturbing', I'm sure there are some sources that state that they found it one of those things...

Development

• As per the above, 'theguardian.com' is not good. Just use 'writing in the Guardian'
• Additionally, I'd move the Jim Sterling sentence before the Keith Stuart one. Sterling is addressing the content of the level, as does the Telegraph source. The reference to Stuart merely refers to criticism of the level skip feature. You might want to move the Guardian quote to the para below instead, as there is also reference to level skip there.

Not sure if anything that helps you at all, feel free to utterly ignore it all :-) Scribolt (talk) 12:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scribolt: Thanks for the review! Sorry I didn't respond sooner, yesterday I was all over the place trying to finish three different essays, seriously! Anyway, now that they have all been turned in, I'll have a chance to look over and respond to your comments. Famous Hobo (talk) 15:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to quickly note that the reference is written as theguardian.com because it has a separate Wikipedia article from the newspaper proper. ~Mable (chat) 15:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Maplestrip. I'm new, but I'm pretty sure that in other articles with content sourced to the Guardian website, they don't make a distinction in the article text, same as the Telegraph, Independent etc. If that's a convention I'm unaware of then I stand corrected, it just really stood out for me when I saw it. Scribolt (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even know the article existed and never used it either when sourcing to the website. I have no idea if it's a more proper way to do it, if it doesn't matter, or if The Guardian is better. I just wanted to point it out, as I was thinking the same thing during my review and decided against mentioning it. ~Mable (chat) 17:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Note In the absence of any recent activity, I have made an extensive edit, based on my suggestions so you can see what I meant. I will not be at all offended if it is rolled back, but I believe there was too much repetition of non-essential content in the lead and the plot/gameplay section need some tightening. Scribolt (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)