Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Looking Glass Studios video games/archive1

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

The list was promoted by NapHit 02:06, 8 January 2013 [1].

List of Looking Glass Studios video games[edit]

List of Looking Glass Studios video games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking Glass Studios was a strange company, and this list reflects it. Their first game, Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, is still legendary for its innovations; their second, John Madden Football '93, is hardly distinguishable from any other early Madden title. Famous games like Thief: The Dark Project and System Shock 2 rub shoulders with an obscure golf title and a cancelled kayaking game for the Nintendo 64. Big commercial successes like Flight Unlimited are followed by massive commercial failures like Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri. The company cannot be summarized easily, but, with any luck, this list comes close to pulling it off. All credit goes to User:PresN for the list's layout and lead: I'm a newbie at this stuff, so I was mainly in charge of the grunt work. If he wants to place himself as a co-nominator, he's welcome to do so. In any case, I will work quickly to address any concerns that may arise. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments by Hahc21
Quick comments
  • On reference #9, "read.me; Looking Glass Shuts Down" is the title? It's weird.
  • I agree that it's weird, but Computer Gaming World's news section was indeed called "read.me" (all lower case). Following newspaper archiving services like Lexis Nexis, I put the title of the section before the article title, with a semicolon separating them. I actually don't know if this is Wikipedia protocol, but I was doing it on FACs as recently as last year without anyone pointing it out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no issue with it. I just wanted to see if it wasn't a typo. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why some entries say "Windows 95" and others only "Windows"?
  • At some point, the company transitioned out of Windows 95 to later versions of Windows. This change wasn't as notable as the one from DOS to 95, though, so sources don't bother to mention it. Do you think I should standardize it all to just plain "Windows"? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I guess that it's better if you standarize them all. Then, you avoid confusion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Okay. I have checked the list and I have no issues with it. Good work. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Any images?
  • "nearly 500,000 units" depends on your point of view, see WP:NPOV. Would change to something like "it has sold over ... units" instead
  • That would be original research. The source reads: "Ultima Underworld went on to sell nearly half a million copies". There is no other way of phrasing that information without including an arbitrary, OR statistic. Further, I have used the "nearly" language in FACs as recent as September of last year without complaint. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The company's first game was Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss in 1992" would change to "The company's first game was Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss in 1992, which was released in 1992" for a more engaging, understanding, prose
  • The game began development in 1990, and it didn't have the Ultima license when it started—so, to follow the sources, this rephrase would read, "The company's first game was Underworld (later Ultima Underworld) in 1990, which was released in 1992." I personally find that confusing, and I think that it adds too much irrelevant detail for a brief summary like this one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to close on May 24, 2000 and to cancel" remove that last "to" there
  • I'm fairly certain that the second "to" is grammatically correct in this sentence, if a bit formal. That's a hunch picked up from reading, though, and not from technical knowledge of grammar. Do you have a style guide that supports your version? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does
  • I'm not familiar with table captions—list newbie, as I said. PresN told me to inform you that the "Games" heading is the caption, and that the template in this article is incapable of having a regular caption as yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't use italics in reference titles
  • Every FA I've ever worked on, from 2006 to 2011, uses italicized titles in references. Even the very recent FA System Shock 2 (with which I was uninvolved) uses them. If this is in the MoS, it must be a new addition. Do you have a link to this guideline? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some references are missing accessdates
  • Just to clarify: Offline sources don't need accessdates. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my experience, archived links don't need accessdates, either. I found two non-archived links without accessdates, and I added them in those cases. As for the archived links, PresN appears to have added quite a few accessdates right before the nomination went up, although he missed a few. Before I add them in those cases, I'd like to confirm that they are indeed necessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Looking Glass Studios official website" not needed, just state "Official website"

TBrandley 02:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "by Paul Neurath in Salem, New Hampshire." please state the country, which in this case is, United States
  • Changed the first sentence to "was an American video game developer" to clarify the country. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to close on May 24, 2000 and to cancel" too many uses of "to", remove the last one as it is very unneeded
  • Done. I still think you're wrong, but it isn't worth fighting over. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TBrandley 06:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Great work, looks like a solid list. TBrandley 18:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – In terms of wanting to review this, you had me at Madden...
  • Jane's Attack Squadron: "and" is needed before "released".
    • It was completed by Mad Doc in 2002 as well, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I played with the wording, revert if I've messed it up. --PresN 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, sorry—I didn't realize that we were talking about the version of that sentence on the list itself. Got confused for a second, there. Thanks for catching that typo. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All caps in ref 5 need removal.
  • Ref 10 needs a publisher.
    • It has one, but there was an error in the template formatting that caused it not to show up. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes The Adrenaline Vault (ref 36) a reliable source?
    • Never thought I'd have to defend Adrenaline Vault. It was kind of a famous game site in the '90s. The site was mentioned in Computerworld as a "top 10 site" on AltaVista in 1999. Google Scholar brings up quite a few uses of it as a source. If you need more than that, it wouldn't be hard for me to dig it up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 43 also needs a publisher (GameSpot).
  • Ref 55 needs an access date.

Giants2008 (Talk) 18:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • What makes ref 1 a reliable source? And it's self-promoting so should we really be relying on it?
    • It is not self-promotion. It's a post-mortem on the game Ultima Underworld written by that game's creator and published on the fansite Through the Looking Glass. It was given the okay by source-checking expert User:Ealdgyth back in 2009 (during UU's FAC), and it has been used as a source by the book Swords & Circuitry: A Designer's Guide to Computer Role-Playing Games. And, in any case, the sales information is backed up by ref 2. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2 doesn't work for me.
    • Internet Archive has been going crazy lately. Replaced it with a Bibalex mirror. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 requires a subscription to cite what you're saying it cites.
    • The link honestly should not even be there, since Highbeam is an archive and not the newspaper source being cited. Removed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "(FM Towns version)" mean in at the bottom of the first cell?
    • The FM Towns was a Japanese computer. The final release date is for the FM Towns version. PresN is that one who put that there, though, so I can't give more of an explanation than that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • UU was released for DOS, and ported to other systems. It was released in the US and Europe in 1992, but the first release in Japan (in 1993) was not the original DOS version, but the FM Towns port. FM Towns is a different type of computer- while most of the world had standardized by the 90s so that any program could run on any computer (if you had the right operating system as well), Japan had not- a DOS program would not physically run on an FM Towns computer, as DOS itself could not run on it. Marking the first release version is something that I've done in a few other FLs, though if you hate it I can chop it here, especially as it's just the one (and UU2, which I just noticed.) --PresN 22:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table isn't sortable, so not sure why you need to relink consoles etc each time?
    • I have no idea how any of that stuff works. As I said, PresN is the one who dealt with the layout. Could you explain what exactly I should change? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I got it. For non-sortable tables, just like prose, you only link the first instance. For sortable tables, what is "first" depends on how it's sorted, so you link it every time. I thought it was just personal preference in tables like this, but I guess not. --PresN 22:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Oppose in the current format. I really don't like the two-column format. I would prefer breaking the top of the second column into columns like: DOS release date, Windows release date, Other release dates, Cancellation date. Nergaal (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you clarify which criteria this candidate fails, or is it just your personal taste that causes you to oppose? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone involved in making this list, I would very much oppose Nergaal's proposed setup- having multiple entire columns that are only used by a few of the rows in a table is a waste of space. This template format is used in several other FLs, and I don't see the rationale behind opposing over it. --PresN 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I personally dislike the table, I agree with PresN. — ΛΧΣ21 22:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you guys explain what is the point of having tables if all the information is hidden in the tables in a way in which is really not easy to glance at? Why not just trasform the entries into paragraphs then? Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the information hidden within the table. I find it well-structured (in some sort). — ΛΧΣ21 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)
;Comments from Crisco 1492
"with three titles published by Looking Glass Studios themselves." - Perhaps "with three titles independently published by Looking Glass Studios."?
innovations in technology - Game technology, or technology in general?
their second two - that suggests that there was a first two
Nothing much from me (and no image to check). Pretty solid — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Took a stab at fixing these issues. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2012 (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_list_candidates/List_of_Looking_Glass_Studios_video_games/archive1&oldid=1138482939"