Talk:Star Wars: Rogue Squadron/Archive 1

Archive 1

Clean-up

This article as a lot of non-npov, unnecessary detail/plot, incorrect verb tense (i.e. past tense), incorrect POV (i.e. second person), etc. etc. I'm going to whack my way through now and try to clean some of it up. --EEMeltonIV 12:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I cut a whole bunch of extraneous detail from this story. Articles about games/fiction should focus on real-world significance and not delve/obsess over in-universe plot points as the previous iteration did. A detailed list that includes how many lasers the TIE fighter has and the number of levels it appears on is simply too much for Wikipedia; Wookiepedia or game wikis might appreciate that content, though. --EEMeltonIV 12:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Missions

We should write something about the missions! Dagadt

It's not a game guide. If by "something about the missions" you mean how they were developed, how they've influenced other games, etc., then sure, great. If, though, you mean just regurgitating what happens in each mission, then no; that's not particularly relevant to Wikipedia. --EEMeltonIV 16:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Star Wars: Rogue Squadron/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   • Prose seems well written with correct grammar and spelling.

   B. MoS compliance:

3. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   • Thought I saw some issues with unsourced facts but after digging they are sourced later in the article.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   • All online sources checkout, offline sources accepted on good faith

   C. No original research:

5. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   • Covers all aspects I can think of in good detail.

   B. Focused:

   • Don't understand this point =/ second opinion needed (and a little pointer)

6. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   • On hold as per Sabre's comments below. Also, a number of other sections seem to omit details about the PC version. Like development but mainly reception and sales

   • I have restructured and added to the lead to further included the PC version. The development section really needs no addition, as the versions were developed simultaneously by the same teams. I will be adding a paragraph to "Reception" about the PC's reviews ASAP! --Torsodog^Talk 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • I have added a paragraph about the PC specific reviews as well as clarified some other little things about the different versions throughout the article. I believe this is substantial enough, but any opinions would be welcome! --Torsodog^Talk 02:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Looks much better now, good effort. Changing to PASS :) Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

7. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   • Seems to be a bit of back and forth about whether the Japanese name should be included between EEMIV and Torsodog. Personally I think it should have the japanese name in just as Torsodog had it.

   • No war, simply a misunderstanding. The matter was discussed at further length here, and it was concluded by Project members that the Japanese name should not be included. --Torsodog^Talk 01:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • Fair enough. Article stable. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

8. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   • Good amount of relevant images that add value to the article. Screenshots all relevant to the sections they are placed in.

9. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   • On hold until the issues detailed are addressed and until another reviewer has a look to make sure I've not overlooked anything.

   • Issues raised have been dealt with and this article now looks like GA class to me. I'm hesitant to pass it though until another editor takes a quick glance at the review to check it over first. If another reviewer does add a second opinion I would like to request they still allow me to pass the article and update everything. All I'm looking for is a little critique and a go ahead nod Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 03:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

   • After having a second opinion by Sabre I am pleased to pass this article as a Good Article Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for jumping in (the GA review tag on the nomination list says "additional comments are welcome" after all), I was going to review this but I see that Cabe6403's beaten me to it and is in the process of that right now. Whether Cabe6403 is going to pick up on this I don't know, but I'm going to mention it anyway. The first paragraph of the lead section seems a bit biased in favour of the N64 version in my view, which seems particularly odd given that the PC version was released first. I'd like to see that made a bit more balanced, treating it more as a con-current release rather than as if the PC version came a few months later. Something along these lines would be more balanced, not giving preference to either version:

Star Wars: Rogue Squadron is an action arcade-style shooter game co-developed by Factor 5 and LucasArts and published by LucasArts for the Nintendo 64 and personal computer. The first of three games in the Rogue Squadron series, it was released for PC on December 2, 1998, and on Nintendo 64 five days later. The Nintendo 64 version was one of the first games to take advantage of the console's Expansion Pak, which allows players to play the game with a 640x480 resolution display instead of the standard 320x240 resolution. Rogue Squadron's sales exceeded expectations; over 1.5 million copies sold worldwide.

Same goes with the infobox, the earlier PC release date is hidden behind a dropdown area displaying the N64 version, when with only three dates in it there is no need to hide any of them. I realise the later games in the series were not released for PC, but that's no reason to discriminate against the PC version here. -- Sabre (talk) 23:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Sabre, you're right, I didn't notice that. This is my first GA review so I was going to go through it best I can then ask for a second opinion. If you'd like to assist me in this matter I'd greatly appreciate it Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign!)} 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's my second opinion review:

• Prose is fine, the wikilinks help explain the in-universe stuff and the real-world stuff is reasonable. Try to be consistent with use of ship names though, for example, you've got "TIE fighter" and "TIE Fighter" in use, the article on them uses "TIE fighter" so it would probably be prudent to ditch the capitalisation in favour of consistency with other articles.
• If there's any available sales information for the PC, add it, but if not don't worry.
  • I've looked, but I can't find anything. I'll continue to look though. The problem is that the PC version is not popular at all, while the N64 version sold a couple million copies. No one cares about the PC version :/ --Torsodog^Talk 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Images: there's problems here. If this gets taken to FA, its liable to get torn apart on its images, the rationales are very weak. I would say that there is at least one too many images here against the non-free content criteria. The size of the screenshots was also too large for fair use, and Guest9999 has reduced them.
  • The rationale for File:Rogue Squadron Crawl.JPG puts it as an entirely decorative image, it doesn't accompany any commentary in the article and the scrolling text is a common feature in all but one Star Wars game I know, so it doesn't have any real value against the NFCC (points 3a and 8). Thus, I've removed it.
  • File:Rogue squadron naboo.JPG has a very weak fair use rationale, stating that the purpose of use is seemingly decorative. FA reviewers will be quick to denounce this image with its current rationale, I'll fix it up. I've also got rid of the black bits in the image, they serve no purpose.
  • The other rationales are reasonable, but could use some tweaking to appear more substantial.
  • Multiplatform games should have platform neutral box art in the infobox it possible to get one or create one, as per guidelines and template documentation. The two box arts aren't majorly different, I've uploaded a platform neutral one.
    • Images are always a problem for me. I uploaded what I thought would be interesting/helpful screens to have in the article with the hopes that they would either be fine or someone would help me out with them. Looks like you were the lucky user that go to help me out! Thanks so much! --Torsodog^Talk 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've dealt with all the problems I can see, which wasn't much. Its a very well put together article, good work. -- Sabre (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and support! --Torsodog^Talk 16:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Best hidden code?

Uh, I think this line about the code being the most well hidden secret on a N64 game should be removed. 6 months after the game came out, it was released by the developers. Whereas the codes for Goldeneye were not released to the public until well after the spiritual sequel, Perfect Dark, had been released a number of years later. No one had any idea about the codes until the developers revealed that there were any. So I think that they would be the most well hidden secrets of any N64 game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.205.12 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you think it is the most well-hidden code doesn't change the fact that is was called the most well hidden code by IGN. --Torsodog^Talk 05:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Easter egg link

This may seem nitpicky, but I'm a big believer in keeping piped links contextual. Recently I de-linked the word "planets" in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead. Torsodog (talk · contribs) reverted me, and I've removed it again, so I thought I ought to explain just why I did so. Basically it's a matter of WP:EGG, which (wisely) advises to "keep piped links as intuitive as possible" in order to adhere to the principle of least astonishment. Internal links should be set up so that a reader goes where they expect to go, not to somewhere that seems like a "surprise". Here's how the sentence was set up before:

• "As the game progresses, Skywalker and Rogue Squadron fight the [[Galactic Empire (Star Wars)|Galactic Empire]] in sixteen missions across various [[List of Star Wars planets|planets]]."

The link to List of Star Wars planets is not contextual within the sentence, and therefore shouldn't be there. Torsodog has asked me "How is "planets" not contextual? It is put into the context of 'Set in the fictional Star Wars galaxy'. How is it unexpected to show up at an article about the fictional planets in that fictional galaxy?" Put simply, just because the paragraph begins with "Set in the fictional Star Wars galaxy..." does not lead a reader to assume that a common term like "planets", when linked, refers not to the usual meaning of the term but to a special Star Wars-type meaning. Obviously proper nouns like Luke Skywalker and X-wing refer to specific elements of the Star Wars universe, and a reader shouldn't be surprised that when clicking on the term "X-wing" they arrive at an article about the fictional space fighter. But common sense says that if I click on an ordinary term like "planets", I should be going to the planet article rather than to one specifically about Star Wars planets. Even though the article is about a Star Wars topic, I don't assume that every linked term leads to something Star Wars-specific (just as by cliking on "video game" I would expect to go the video game article, rather than List of Star Wars video games). Though I might be expected to figure it out after a moment ("Oh, how did I get here? Well, I linked here from an article about something Star Wars, so I guess it makes sense that I arrived at another Star Wars article"), there are ways that the link could be set up so as to be less "astonishing" to the reader. For example:

• "As the game progresses, Skywalker and Rogue Squadron fight the [[Galactic Empire (Star Wars)|Galactic Empire]] in sixteen missions across various [[List of Star Wars planets|''Star Wars'' planets]]."

By simply adding "Star Wars" to the piped link, we make it clear that it's going to lead the reader to an article about Star Wars planets rather than just planets in general, the same way that linking Star Wars galaxy lets them know that they'll be going to an article about the galaxy of Star Wars, not just galaxies in general. Piping common terms to specialized articles presents a contextual challenge, and often the best practice is to rephrase it so that the link doesn't appear as just a common term (or, failing that, to just leave the link out entirely). That way we comletely avoid potential reader confusion. I hope this helps to explain my edit. I realize it sounds nitpicky, but it's all about context. I should add that this is a very well-written article; kudos to those who worked on it! --IllaZilla (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice!

Well done on this article! Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all the nicer, I think, because it manages to get in so much about the game—business and reception stuff, gameplay and hidden codes, blahblahblah—while still keeping it all crisp prose. The hidden Naboo Starfighter was particularly interesting—I played the game before but never even heard of its presence there until the article (I think) so I got the game later on to see for myself. :)

You'll probably like the article on Battle for Naboo as well: same developer, now that they deeply understood the console, used a new game engine and apparently introduced audio commentary to games. The business behind a game can be quite involved sometimes. --an odd name 02:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm really proud of this article. As OddName said, it really turned out to be very well-rounded, especially for a video game article. Next on the to-do list is Rogue Squadron II, so keep an eye out for it! --Torsodog^Talk 05:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely didn't expect to see this as Today's FA, well done. Qeee1 (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia

Oh man, seeing this as the featured article on the front page today brought me here. I played this game so much in my youth. Thanks for the memories. Volatar (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I too must say this, "THANK YOU!" Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Error?

"The first of three games in the Rogue Squadron series, it was published by LucasArts and Nintendo and released for Windows and the Nintendo 64 in December 1998." Does this sentence from the first paragraph sound a little odd to anyone else.. HordeFTL (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No? You'll need to be more specific, please. --Torsodog^Talk 19:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty picky with English, but the "it" is named beforehand so that sentence looks fine. It could be something like

Star Wars: Rogue Squadron (known as Star Wars: Rogue Squadron 3D on the PC) is an arcade-style action game co-developed by Factor 5 and LucasArts, and the first of three games in the Rogue Squadron series. It was published by LucasArts and Nintendo and released for Windows and the Nintendo 64 in December 1998."

but the current one works for me. --an odd name 20:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Arcade style

Hi @Torsodog:,

What I meant with that arcade-style isn't mentioned in the article, but you've fixed that already. Thanks for that! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)