Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deactivators/archive3

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) 12 December 2019 [1].

Deactivators[edit]

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article again after getting it a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors. This short but simple article on an old British puzzle game for the Amstrad, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum is ready for another shot at the bronze star. GamerPro64 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

All of my concerns were already addressed in the previous two FACs (here and here), and the copy-edit from a GOCE copy-editor (here) also helped to improve the article. I support the article for promotion. Great work with it. It may be helpful to ping the previous oppose voter from the last FAC, but either way, good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

I opposed at this article's FAC last time. Comments carried over from that review:

  • "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.
Clearer. Thanks. However, could the concept of a "level" be introduced beforehand? Eg 'The player controls bomb disposal robots known as deactivators to deactivate bombs placed in five scientific research complexes by terrorists. Each of these buildings constitutes a level within the game and each level needs to be completed before moving on to the next, which will be more difficult to complete' or similar. (Obviously I am just guessing with regards to how the game is played, but hopefully you get the idea.)
Reworked again. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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?
    • I think I explained it better. GamerPro64 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That helps, but as a point of fact, a "different gravity" means gravity of a different strength. (Which would make sense in a game context.) If you actually mean 'gravity operating from a different direction' - or, possibly clearer, ' "down" is in a different direction' or similar - you should say so.
Re-worked. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I don't see what "and perspectives" adds. If it refers to something different from the changed gravity then could we be told what? If it is a repeat of "different gravity" it needs either deleting or rephrasing. (I assume deleting, as I don't see what one can do to the gravity which changes the wikt:perspective, but I am open to correction.)
Removed Perspectives. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
    • Not sure what the issue is with this sentence. Nor what terminology is the issue. You just get circuit boards to put into a computer to activate functions. Not sure how to dumb that down if needed. GamerPro64 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In an attempt to overcome this impasse, does it mean something like 'In-game features known as circuit boards can be found, which when inserted into an in-game computer enable a player to be able to open doors or windows: this is necessary in order to throw the bombs from the building'? (Again I am guessing, so apologies if I am completely wrong; but I am trying to be helpful. If I am correct, some explanation of "computers" is needed.) Continuing, an explanation of "forcefield" and "teleporter" and their in-game effects is needed.
I reworked to explains things better. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.
    • They deactivate the bombs by throwing them out of the building. GamerPro64 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that, in game, bombs become - for some arbitrary in-game reason - deactivated once thrown out of a building? If so, things become a little clearer. The Occam's Razor approach would be (IMO) that if one has thrown a bomb out of a building it is rendered "safe" because it then explodes harmlessly - rather than because the act of removing it from the building somehow serves to "deactivate" it. This is one of a number of areas where the nominator, IMO, is so close to the subject that they seem to struggle to step back and write a disinterested summary.

It is always depressing when an editor represents an article having made no attempt to address issues flagged up at the previous FAC.

Thanks for the responses. Some points become, possibly, clearer. See above for my replies to each point in line. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


New points:

  • "Each room has different gravity and perspectives; some rooms are sideways or upside-down." I have no familiarity with the game, so apologies if this guess is incorrect, but I suspect that what is meant is not that "Each room has different gravity", but that 'In each room gravity is orientated in a different direction'. If I am correct then this is a prime example of the careless use of English which means that this does not meet 1a.
  • "the player must throw them from room to room to another deactivator until" I suspect that what actually happens is something like 'the player must throw them from an deactivator in one room to a deactivator in an adjacent room until'. See my previous comment re use of English.
  • I have only looked at the first paragraph of the main article for new issues, where there are also a couple of less serious 1a issues, and it seems clear that the article is not ready for FAC. I am inclined to oppose now, but will hold off to give the nominator an opportunity to improve the article. So far as "Gameplay" is concerned, this section should make a reasonable attempt to explain how the game is played to someone unfamiliar with it; and most importantly, it should be accurate.
    • I think I took care of all the points made right now. GamerPro64 17:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GamerPro64 I can see that you are faithfully implementing my suggestions, but this is having the effect of me amending the whole section, sentence by sentence. This is not what FAC reviewers are supposed to do; as it is, I will be reviewing a first paragraph of Gameplay which is nearly as much my prose as yours. FAC is to apply a final check and polish to articles that are as good as they can be. I realise that it is difficult for me to communicate specific guidance if I don't wish to spell out exactly what you need to do to change something. The prose in Gameplay is improved, but I still feel that it is incomplete, lacks full explanation of some areas, does not flow well, and is insufficient to tell a neophyte how the game works.
Perhaps you could look at some other games which are already FAs to gain an impression of how they handle this. Two random examples I have recently come across are Knight Lore and Descent (1995 video game). (The latter is currently a FAC and so may never become a FA. But it is a first FAC nomination and as such may give you an idea of what is expected of such.) It is possible that if you approach the nominators of video game FAs they may be willing and able to provide useful advice.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spy-cicle[edit]

Here are some suggestions/points I have from reading the article:

  • Considering this was released over three decades ago the release year should be stated in the first sentence for more accurate previews (i.e. Deactivators is an 1986 action puzzle video game).
    • Done. Though not sure what previews has to do with the quality of articles. GamerPro64 03:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the platforms and release sentence to later on in the lede.
  • Omit the 6 when stating its release in the lede per WP:VG/DATE.
  • There are range of sentences under Gameplay, Development and Legacy with no sources. This may becuase the later sources mentioned in those respective sections are linked to those unreferenced sources but they still should be appropriately referenced.
    • Not sure if that might be considered over sourcing or the like. GamerPro64 03:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's understandable that Gameplay does not have many references since it is mostly from the game itself but the first four sentences of development and the first sentence of Legacy should really be referenced per WP:V. After all it is always better to have more references than too few.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 12:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • But its the same references used. The entire Legacy section has the same source for its information. GamerPro64 14:58, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some verifiability concerns the Deactivators Instructions source as it is simply a text file.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed the link to the text file. GamerPro64 15:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

This has been on the Urgents list for a while but hasn't gone the distance. It will be archived soon unless it receives some significant attention. --Laser brain (talk) 13:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson[edit]

A few thoughts:

  • Going off criterion 3, there aren't any free images in the article. I believe that the fair-use rationales are valid, and I know this isn't itself a reason to oppose, but I'm concerned that an appearance on the Main Page without an image might produce a long blurb relative to the article's size. Perhaps include a free image of one of the developers in the "Development" section if not an imposition and if such an image is available. Otherwise don't sweat it.
  • "If a bomb explodes in a room, everything inside it is destroyed, making it impossible to complete the level." What happens then, does the game start over or is this a glitch that freezes the game/hinders the experience?
    • Watching a quick gameplay of it it does look like the game starts over. GamerPro64 15:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • If that can be reliably sourced, that should go into the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Re-watching the video, it looks like the player actually advanced to the next level since it was the last bomb in the area. So my guess is if objects like circuit boards are inside the exploded room or is a route that needed to be taken, it would be impossible to complete the level. GamerPro64 03:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps the Legacy section, being only two sentences long, should be merged with the Reception section.
    • I'm fine with that. Someone split them off earlier and I don't think that works out in general. GamerPro64 15:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise this looks good, if a bit brief, and I can easily swing support with these quick fixes. Good work! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:48, 21 November 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/archive3&oldid=930508484"