Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deactivators/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2019 [1].

Deactivators[edit]

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 02:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making a second attempt at nominating Deactivators, a short but simple article on an old British puzzle game for the Amstrad, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum. As the last review came and went without much fanfare, I am hoping this time around there will be enough discussion on whether this is clear to become a Featured Article or if there are any concerns to be raised. GamerPro64 02:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I reviewed this during the first FAC, and I am glad to see it back for a second nomination. Hopefully, it will attract more views this time around. My suggestions are below:

  • I have a comment for the first sentence of the lead's first paragraph. It is rather short. I have looked through video game featured articles, and they often have more information in the first sentence. There is not a set pattern, but you can look at Panzer Dragoon Saga, Oxenfree, and Phantasmagoria (video game) to see what I am referring to. I am not saying you have to change it if this is your personal preference, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
    • Combined sentence one with sentence two. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second and third sentences of the lead's first paragraph start with "It was...". If you keep the current structure of that paragraph (see my above comment), I would suggest saying something like "The game was..." for the second instance for additional variation. It is not a major sticking point, but I think it would help with keeping the prose engaging.
  • I have a comment for this sentence (The concept for the game came from a brainstorming session between Bishop and Palmer, with its design and development taking five to six month to complete.). In the past, I have received several notes to avoid using the "with..." sentence structure. To be honest, I do not have a personal problem with it, and I do not see the big issue with it, but I thought it was worth bringing to your attention.
  • I was wondering if this sentence (and it was later ranked as one of the best games for the ZX Spectrum by Your Sinclair.) could be revised to something like (and Your Sinclair later ranked it as one of the ZX Spectrum's best games.) to avoid the passive tense and condense the prose somewhat.
  • For this part (the game was not commercially successful and Tigress Marketing closed shortly after its release.), I am wondering if there should be a comma after "successful".
  • I have a comment about this sentence (If a bomb goes off in a room then everything inside of it gets destroyed.). The source mentions that once a bomb explodes, then "the game becomes impossible to complete". I think that is worth clarifying in the article.
  • I would wikilink "brainstorming' in the lead since it is wikilinked in the body of the article.
  • For this part (created to focus on arcade and action games for Ariolasof), I do not think the "for Ariolasof" is necessary. I think it is clear from the context of the overall sentence since it was already described as being an imprint of the company.
  • Why is the release date (6 October 1986) specific in the body of the article and the infobox, but it is left more vague in the lead (It was released for the Amstrad CPC 464, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum in October 1986.)?
    • Not sure the reasoning but I added the exact date in the lead. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part (A reviewer for Computer and Video Games opined that the game was destined to become a cult game.), I would say "that it was" instead to avoid the repetition of "game" twice (or three times if count the magazine title) in the same sentence.
  • I think it is important to note that this game was the first one published under the Reaktor imprint (which is supported in the Amstrad Action source.
  • For this part (describing it as "excellent,"), I am uncertain if the comma should be in the quotation marks.
  • I am uncertain about the use of "while" in this part (while Gwyn from Your Sinclair described the graphics as "clean") because it is normally used to show a contrast between two ideas and I do not see a contrast between this point and that shown in the previous part of the sentence.
  • Would it be better to revise this sentence (Andrew Wilton marked it as the most disappointing part of the game for not using the most of Amstrad's colour limitations) to something like (Andrew Wilton was disappointed that the game did not make the most of Amstrad's colour limitations.)? Something about the current phrasing reads awkwardly to me.
  • For this part (In an interview with Retro Gamer about the game,), I do not believe "about the game" is necessary as it is clear from the context.
  • For this part (developer Tigress Marketing closed,), I am not sure the comma is necessary. I am not an expert about comma placement though so I could be wrong here.
  • This part (later working for Virgin Interactive, Mindscape and PopCap Games) is missing the Oxford comma, although it is used throughout the rest of the article and it is important to be consistent.

You have done a wonderful job with the article. Apologies for the amount of comments; I am trying to go through the article carefully to help improve it as much as possible. I love seeing a smaller article on a more obscure subject matter in the FAC space. It certainly does inspire me a lot. Plus it has bomb disposal robots! lol. In all seriousness, I hope my comments are helpful; once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of them. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Gog the Mild[edit]

I am leaning oppose at the moment on 1a. There are a number of copy edit or grammar issues, but the biggy is Gameplay. IMO this needs all but rewriting to make the prose "engaging and of a professional standard", or even to render it comprehensible to someone who has not played the game. To pick a few points almost at random:

  • "Deactivators" Why the upper case D?
  • "A time limit is set based on the fuses of the bombs." What does this mean?
  • "The player controls bomb disposal robots, known as Deactivators, to deactivate bombs"; "until they can be thrown out the exit". One gains the impression from the second section quoted, that the bombs will explode harmlessly once "thrown out the exit", and that to cause this to happen is the object of the game; from the first that the bombs are deactivated and so prevented from exploding, and that this is the object of the game. This appears to be a contradiction.
  • "making it impossible to beat the level" The words form a grammatical sentence, but I really have no idea what it is communicating in terms of gameplay.
  • "Each room has different gravity and perspectives, with some rooms being sideways or upside-down" Even leaving aside a room processing multiple perspectives, what is this trying to convey about how the game is played to someone unfamiliar with it?
  • "There are also circuit boards that must be inserted into a computer to activate functions such as opening a door or window, deactivating force fields, or turning on teleporters" No doubt if one is familiar with the terminology, eg by being an aficionado of action puzzle video games, it makes perfect sense; if one is not, it does not. IMO, to meet 1a it needs to.

This is not an exhaustive list of criterion 1a issues with the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going to be requesting a copy edit from the Video Game project. If I get no takers I'll ask the Guild of Copy Editors next. GamerPro64 02:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GamerPro64. It all seems very sortable to me. Apologies for being the bearer of bad tidings, although a feeling that the prose was poor may, or may not, have contributed to the lack of previous reviewers. Hopefully if that can be upgraded other editors will be more prepared to look at it. I am switching to a formal "Oppose" for now on 1a: if that can be improved, and I see no reason why it shouldn't be, I will review the other criteria more thoroughly, but a skim does not indicate that there will be any problems. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - Since this has dropped into the "Older" section with open opposition, I think it's best to archive so the prose issues can be sorted outside of the FAC process. It may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2019 (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/Deactivators/archive2&oldid=914364061"