This peer review discussion has been closed.
I'm really serious about getting this article up to FA quality, so I could use some FA quality criticism. I've recently copy-edited the article, and I can honestly say its the best its ever looked. But is it good enough? Thanks for taking time to look it over, Noj r (talk) 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Automated Review
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
- Comments by David Fuchs
- Prose would need massaging to meet FA standards; one of the recurring issues I see is repetitious wording, for example: "Development began in 1997 when Looking Glass Studios approached upstart Irrational Games with an idea to co-develop a new game.[32] The design for the new game was heavily influenced by System Shock, as the development team wanted to create a similar game."
- Audit comma use, for example "Some devices like keypads, gun turrets, and vending machines can be hacked." → "Some devices, like keypads, gun turrets, and vending machines, can be hacked." Either throw them out properly or don't be dependent on them.
- There's a bit too much familiarity in the gameplay section. Reorganizing it might help newcomers to the series. For example, "When the game begins, the player must pursue a career in a fictional military, the Unified National Nominate (UNN). Enlisting in the Marines increases skills in combat and weapons; the Navy provides hacking and engineering training; and the OSA hones player's psychic powers.[14][note 1] After choosing a class and undergoing a brief character development stage, the player begins receiving "cyber-modules" for completing objectives." --this info about physic powers comes out of nowhere.
The notes section seems to reek a bit of WP:OR. Either remove the explanatory notes and explain inline (which I recommend) or add citations to the notes.Does the game manual actually use "mêlée" with all that ornamentation, or just "melee"? If the later, change the use; if the former... depending on what the reviews say I'd still suggest changing it.What is the point of the game quotation in the setting? It's confusing and unnecessary.In plot once again a bit too much familiarity, e.g. "the elevator shaft" and "SHODAN, the malevolent AI"- I'd like to see more print publication refs (newspapers, what have you.) If you send me an email I'll reply back with any I find via LexisNexis.
--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've addressed your concerns. Is it looking better? -- Noj r (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- Slightly. Some more concerns:
- There's no secondary sources for the plot section. If you can find a game guide from a reputable source like IGN or GameSpot, that should suffice to sourcing the elements.
- There's no mention of the enemies the soldier encounters (the Many) in the plot summary; it sounds like Polito wakes him up and he breezily fixes the shaft. Add something about encountering the mutated crewmen or what have you.
- For critical reception, it's generally not the whole of IGN's staff or the like who comments (in Legacy and Reception.) Add the reviewer's name, for example see the reception section of Star Trek VI; the critics are named with their publications.
- Since the BioShock and System Shock 3 subsections are so small, why not just merge them into the legacy section?
- File:Systemshock2box.jpg should be reuploaded at a smaller size, preferably no larger than 256px wide. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- All done, except one. I fail to see why plot section needs secondary sources; the game itself is sufficient. I find this suggestion ironic, considering your Myst plot sections contain sparse sources too. Also, you have striked out some comments above, but not others. Am I to assume the un-striked comments are still outstanding? I know your busy, but thanks again. -- Noj r (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)