Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Star Control 3/archive1

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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 August 2021 [1].

Star Control 3[edit]

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a classic video game from the mid 1990s. It was well-received on release, but lives in the shadow of Star Control II, not to mention the bankruptcy of the publisher just a few years later that led to an intellectual property split which unceremoniously ended the series. Still, the game has a legacy of its own and is worth highlighting, coming up on its 25th anniversary in just over 7 weeks.

My hope is to get this to featured quality by the time of its anniversary, and I'm willing to work extra hard to make that a reality. A lot of work has been put in already, including a peer review and a good article nomination. I'm confident that the research is comprehensive and thorough, and that there are no issues with image copyright. I'd like to think the prose is in good shape too, but there's always a few good suggestions in the FA process. Thanks in advance to the reviewers and looking forward to working on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I received permission from the committee to open this FA nomination. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sandbh[edit]

Support.

  1. In the Plot section, who is The Captain?
  2. In the Design and Production section, it says, "smoothly on a 486". What is a 486?
  3. Should the article say something about the bankruptcy of the publisher just a few years later that led to an intellectual property split which unceremoniously ended the series?

The FAC criteria appear met to me although I cannot speak for the media in terms of compliance with image use policy. Sandbh (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sandbh: All three of these are good suggestions and I added some short phrases to clarify. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two were well done. Can't see any action taken wrt to the last one. Sandbh (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This image [2], at 16K, is too small for an FA article. Sandbh (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandbh: I improved the phrasing around the fate of the sequel. Otherwise, I've decided to leave the better coverage of the series at the main article. I'm wary of going off on a tangent about the whole IP history after Star Control 3. (The copyright reverted to the original creators, but not the trademark, leading to a game called The Ur-Quan Masters, which followed from Star Control II, but not Star Control 3, which is the main topic here. It gets really pedantic.) I've tweaked it and left it at a good point, to avoid (a) going off-topic, (b) being redundant, (c) those redundancies turning into a WP:CONTENTFORK over time.
  • The image is a tricky thing. As you can see from the history, a bot came along and shrunk it. There is a comparable image here, but I've always had a hard time uploading, and I'm not sure if a bot will come along and shrink it again anyway.
I know that's not quite what you suggested, but hopefully that addresses the remaining issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker: Good. Could you try adding a nobots template to the article, and uploading a higher res image? Sandbh (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before attempting something like that, please take a look at WP:IMAGERES. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: The WP:IMAGERES link from Nikkimaria indicates that the image is already at the high end. Instead of wrestling with this guidance, I tweaked the image caption so the reader gets what they need from it. It's always tricky when I'm getting conflicting advice here, but this is my best effort to thread that needle. Let me know if this is acceptable now. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandbh: Checking back in one more time to see if you had time to read the comment from Nikkimaria. Hoping I found an acceptable alternative. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: All good by me. Sandbh (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again! Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Star Control 3 is a 1996 action-adventure game developed by Legend Entertainment. It is the third installment in the Star Control trilogy. - could probably merge these. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede sentences usually cover the publisher. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added the publisher and platforms, which makes each sentence longer. Kept them separate for readability. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede feels a little short, it goes from the lede sentence into the plot. For instance, it doesn't cover the release dates, the consoles it was released on, and not much development info. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • mysterious collapse of hyperspace - this doesn't mean much to a reader without prior knowledge Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think actually explaining how the game works, rather than pointing out changes from SC2 would be helpful. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarified the main gameplay that ties the series together. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a link is required for "sequel". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combat offers more detailed steering and aiming, as well as additional player versus player multiplayer options - is this online? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is from a very early period that included many player vs player options, not just online. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • The body of an article needs to also be written as if the lede didn't exist. I'd recommend something explaining what Star Control as a series is first. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is hard to explain as each game is quite different. But I rephrased this to start with what's the same instead of what's different. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gameplay results around how it differs from Star Control 2, rather than how the game actually plays. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to rephrase some of this, so it feels less like a comparison and more like an explanation of the series' evolution. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three of the original Star Control games feature 2D "melee" ship combat.[10] Star Control 3 offers the overhead viewpoint from the first two games, as well as a new 2.5D pseudo-3D viewpoint - I have no idea what this means. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to rephrase this with less jargon and more wikilinks. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • multiplayer player versus player - isn't the first thing implied by the second? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • network, modem, and serial connections - seems a bit in depth? Why not "online"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a big turning point in game history, and using a local area network was sometimes easier than using the internet. It's unique to this period of gaming and I doubt many games still offer that feature anymore. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of the game involves dialog with alien races, each with unique personalities - but what does this actually do? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • assembled a "bible" - might need esplaination - I'm assuming this is some sort of cheat sheet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The story expands on the mystery of the Precursors' disappearance, and introduces new enemies in the form of the Hegemonic Crux - this isn't really development. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • inches-thick + not needed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team eventually finished 24 alien characters and animations - this reads like there was 24 animations... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (the first Star Control game for Sega consoles since the original),[23 - seems like trivia. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game was also delayed - no need for this sentence. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "modern computers" WP:RECENTISM Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:22, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aren't sales sections usually after the critical reception? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forget where the MOS is for reception sections, but my understanding is that we don't state scores for the reviews in the prose if they are in the box. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Metacritic, Star Control 3 has a score of 89% based on the reviews of 5 critics, indicating "generally favorable" reviews. - "according to review aggregator website Metacritic, the game recieved "generally favourable" reviews. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception is probably the weakest point - it pretty much just gives a summary of the publications, rather than give critical insight. Generally we make a point, and comment on that with the reviews. There's quite a few reviews in the review box, but the section is quite small. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • These must have creeped in from another editor. Fixed them. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Lee Vilenski: Tried to address all of these, with comments. I agree that the gameplay needed a clearer sequence, to explain the gameplay properly to an outside reader. Hopefully it's in better shape now. Happy to keep running with this. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lee Vilenski: Did another round of revisions, attempting to address these through re-phrasing and re-organizing. Sales sections usually fit wherever they flow the best, for example at the start with Chrono Trigger. I took a crack at re-phrasing the reception section somewhat. I've actually been advised to not draw any critical insight from the reviews, instead using Wikipedia's neutral summary style. But I tried to expand on the main themes – the combination of different gameplay, the story and characters, and the comparisons to Star Control II – while still erring on the side of concision. Thanks for the thorough review and hopefully that addresses your comments. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was just thinking something per WP:RECEPTION. I'll take another read through. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:13, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lee Vilenski: I came back to it with a fresh perspective. I try to avoid synthesizing together sources, but this felt like it was a pretty plain observation that helps summarize the reviews. Hopefully the section gives a clearer overview about where the critics landed now. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. Drop me a line when/if you have covered all the points above and I'll take another read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lee Vilenski: I think I did! Apologies if that wasn't clear. I worked through your last round of comments, along with multiple passes on the reception now. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review and the support. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Viridian Bovary[edit]

Hi, my comments are mostly general as I'm not familiar with video game articles. Please let me know if you disagree with any of them. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All images should have ALT text.
  • I don't think the wikilink on "published" is needed but I guess it's fine to keep it.
  • As the third installment in the Star Control trilogy, the game was released for the personal computer in 1996 and the Macintosh in 1998. I suggest removing the "As" at the beginning.
  • The single-player mode is similar to the previous game, combining space exploration, alien dialogue, and ship-to-ship combat. How about: The game employs a single-player mode that is similar to the previous installment, combining space exploration, alien dialogue, and ship-to-ship combat.
  • I have a query. Shouldn't the sentence about the game's release come after the discussion of it's development in the lede?
  • Star Control 3 features a 2D "melee" ship combat system, similar to that of the first two games. I don't know what a "melee" is. Perhaps you should link it to melee.
  • I'm not sure who "the Captain" is.
  • It debuted on PC Data's computer game sales charts at #11 in September 1996, and climbed to tenth place the following month. According to MOS:NUM, Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. So I think either the "11" or the "tenth" should be altered.
  • I think it'd be better if you could try paraphrasing the PC Gamer's quote.
  • I can see some repetitions of "gave the game" / "Giving the game" some stars. I think it's better if you can revise these sentences to avoid over-use.

This is all for now. Nice work on the article. :) I shall have a look at it again once my initial comments are addressed. I have a current FAC open and would welcome any comments. Thank you. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Viridian Bovary: I just tried my best to fix these issues. "Melee" and "captain" are terms from the games, so I tried my best to clarify that. I'm getting a bit of conflicting advice on where to put the release information, but User:Lee Vilenski is right that this is probably standard. (See Chrono Trigger or Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary.) Hopefully that addresses all your comments. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely much improved but I'd suggest paraphrasing the PC gamer's quote since it's a tad too long.
  • Reception looks much better now. If you don't mind, I've copy-edited it slightly. Also, I have a few other comments.
  • I think the sentence: The gameplay is distinct from the rest of the series,[2] combining gameplay from the first two games with new game mechanics of its own. sounds a bit tedious; "game" is repeated too many times in the sentence. I suggest rewording it.
  • Each alien race has a unique ship, with a unique weapon and secondary ability. I feel there is a better way of saying this without using "unique" twice.
  • Where the first two games allowed two players to play at the same keyboard, the game includes new multiplayer modes for network, modem, and serial connections. I suggest specifying Star Control 3 in place of the game.
  • The combat controls allow more degrees of rotation than the prior games, with more detailed aiming, steering, and scaling. I think "than the prior games," is a redundancy.
  • The dialog screens feature digitized full motion video of mechanical puppets, instead of the 2D animated pixel art of the previous games. I suggest rewording it to: As opposed to the 2D animated pixel art of the previous games, the dialog screens feature digitized full motion video of mechanical puppets.
@Viridian Bovary: The copy-edits much are appreciated. Good catch on some of the redundancies that definitely felt tedious. I rolled back just one quote, as the operative part of "more than make up for it" is really the "more than" part. I also kept the phrasing of about the dialog screens, as inverting the structure sets it up to talk about all of the art. But those small things aside, let me know if there is anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the prose nitpicks and thank you for following those up. Happy to support this for promotion. Well done. --Viridian Bovary (talk) 04:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Check grammar in captions
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:StarControl3_Solarsystem_View.png needs a stronger FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the review. Fixed the captions, sizing, alt text, and FUR. Let me know if I missed anything. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please double-check the Bates caption - still seems like it's missing words. Also alts shouldn't need to be nowiki. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, still not clear: "their" could refer to Accolade, or to Bates' team, and I'm not sure which. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check-in with coordinators[edit]

  • @FAC coordinators: Wanted to check-in here. There are 3 general reviews that are supportive, and 1 image review that is neutral-to-supportive. The anniversary for this game is September 24th and the window is starting to close on TFA selections, but I also understand that we need to follow the process until we're sure this is FA quality. Is there a sense of what this article might still need for this nomination to succeed? I can prioritize trying to reach out to editors who are willing to help with the right things. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query noted. Advice sought. Hang on.
  • It needs a source review and I have listed it at requests.
  • In terms of obtaining a speedy promotion, another general review, preferably by an experienced reviewer, would help.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the TFA scheduler for September has said that if it is promoted in the next month or so they will run it on the 24th. (You owe me a favour. ;-) ) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The TFA scheduling is a huge boon, thank you. I don't know any Wikipedians in high places, but I can offer my work and my time. Reach out on my talk page if you think of anything. (In the meantime, let me see if I can scare up some more reviews for this nomination.) Shooterwalker (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Scared-straight comments Support from Panini![edit]

AH! You scared me. Alright, I guess I'll review it.

Lead + Infobox
  • It doesn't seem like the release dates are backed with references in the body, so the infobox could be a good place to do so.
  • This could apply to writers, designers, etc. as well. Wait, do they even need to be cited? I don't know, let me ask WT:VG. Nevermind, you cite them in the body. Alright, hotshot, the article isn't perfect so quit trying to think 2-5 steps ahead of me.
  • I think the installment is spelled incorrectly with one l here. It might be on purpose (outside of U.S. spelling, but other examples of this in the text don't seem to exist from my search through.
  • This doesn't seem changed
  • Accolade is linked a second time in the third paragraph. I know the company is great and all but it must be humbled.
  • Hyperspace, I also discovered, is linked twice as well.
  • "Star Control 3 was considered a critical and commercial success upon release." This could be followed by a couple of why's.
Gameplay
  • I think the first paragraph is too small for it to be split from the subheader below it.
  • The combat section is only two paragraphs long, and small ones at that, which makes me think they can be combined. From there, I believe the ship combat header could be removed because it breaks up the already small paragraphs.
  • The interactive story header is fine, but the image should really be moved to the right if it's not a bother. It's causing a massive gap between the image and the Plot header and it also moves the text away from the interactive story header as well.
  • The word "combat" is repeated a lot in short succession in the ship combat paragraphs.
  • "Players can instantaneously travel around the sector using a "warp bubble" device, in contrast to hyperspace travel in Star Control II." From a readthrough, the difference between the two is not obvious, so I assume other readers might struggle with this too.
  • "The player's allies invent this warp device in response to a hyperspace collapse, which becomes the subject of the player's investigation." This doesn't seem to explain gameplay and rather explains why the tech exists (Plot). This should be explained in the Plot section, and if it's already there, this can be removed.
  • The last paragraph switches from dialogue to dialog.

The Plot was a fun read. Good Job!

Development
  • The image doesn't necessarily need to specify that Bates is pictured above, as he is all that's there.
  • In fact, if possible, I'd crop the other guy out. The image could easily be cut to half its size without messing with its focus.
  • Now would be a good time to hyperlink Accolade, where it appears in the first paragraph. What a big ego that company has.
  • The last sentence of the first paragraph and the first sentence of the second paragraph can be combined; they talk about similar things but are split up.
  • I think a picture of these "mechanical puppets" would be beneficial. It's hard to visualize what these things are.
Reception + Legacy
  • The PC Game Parade source is unused apart from the table; I assume it's because it's a publication you don't have access to, but I've been told that reviews that only appear in the table shouldn't be mentioned.
  • Normally when I have a sales or awards section that's too small, I combine it with the review aggregator paragraphs or put it above the aggregator paragraph. Since the sales section is two lines long (Chromebook), I would say it doesn't need its own subheader.
  • "A few publications were critical of the game's strategy-based colony system, while still recommending the game overall." I like this sentence! Reception section for individual video games should mix general critical thoughts and individual ones, and this currently is the only instance of this.
  • I would also move the award paragraph upward; see my note above.
  • Kotaku should be italicized in the second paragraph of Legacy

I don't have this page on my watchlist, so please ping me in response. I might have a GA up soon (maybe) but QPQ isn't necessary. Panini!🥪 14:46, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini!: Thanks so much for the review! I was able to address most of the comments, but I've always had issues with images on my computer. If you have the time and energy, I think your suggestions are good ones. A quick google search for "Star Control 3 puppets" would easily pull up many examples of what the prose is describing. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, I added the image. I'm gonna need you to write an alt text because as I've never played the game I can't describe where they are or if the border is a computer or something like that. This image was the best quality one I found, but if you'd like something I can take another look. In addition, would you like me to crop the image of Bates? Panini!🥪 19:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also put two notes above. Panini!🥪 19:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Panini!: Thanks for helping out with the image. I adjusted the caption and the alt text. I also addressed the comments above. With these changes, the Reception section summarizes the general opinion of each reviewer, as well as summarizing a few points across the reviews – the writing, the combat, and the strategy system. I feel that there are diminishing returns when you start going into too much detail, and retreading the same reviewers again and again, so I think this is hopefully the right balance. I appreciate your help, and I wouldn't mind cropping the Bob Bates image if you have the time and energy. Hopefully that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks, good; Support. I'll crop the image later today, probably. Panini!🥪 12:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from IceWelder[edit]

The article looks good overall but there are some things I think should be addressed:

Infobox
  • Link Daniel Greenberg (game designer).
  • Should Andrew Frazier be credited as the composer?
  • The MS-DOS release date is sourced using the game's Metacritic page. We know that these dates are taken from the user-edited GameFAQs, which is unreliable. The source should be replaced.
  • The Mac OS date is not sourced anywhere; the body only mentions the year.
  • Handled most of these. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything to back up the Mac OS release date. Let me know how I should handle it, as I did a pretty exhaustive search on the web, and in print. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • ... the game was released for the personal computer in 1996 and the Macintosh in 1998 – Macs are also personal computers; just use MS-DOS and Mac OS like in the infobox.
  • Planetary exploration is also replaced with ... – Redundant 'also'.
  • Consider linking Space warfare for "ship-to-ship combat".
  • The "instantaneous" in "instantaneous fast travel" feels superfluous as that is the definition of fast travel.
  • ... as well as additional player versus player multiplayer options – Should be "player-versus-player" and MOS:SEAOFBLUE should be fixed (e.g. by unlinking "multiplayer").
  • Game publisher Accolade hired Legend Entertainment ... – "Game publisher" is redundant here as Accolade was introduced as such a few sentences prior.
Gameplay
  • Star Control 3 is an action-adventure science fiction game with strategic elements. – SEAOFBLUE. Suggestion: is an action-adventure game with strategy elements and a science fiction setting. Otherwise, you can also drop "science fiction".
  • Whereas all three games feature ship-to-ship combat ... – "Whereas" implies a contrast but none follows. Consider: Like its predecessors, Star Control 3 features ship-to-ship combat. Also link space warfare if you did so above.
  • ... which the previous games in the series have called the "melee" mode – "have called" -> "call", as the games still do this.
  • Two starships face off in a space battle, and attempt to ... – This comma should be removed.
  • The combat system is integrated into a single player story mode – "single player" -> "single-player".
  • The player can warp to any star system by clicking on a Super VGA star map with a mouse. – Is the color space of the map relevant here? To improve flow, consider integrating the sentence with the higher-up one that already addresses the "warp bubble" device.
  • The bit about the PWM -> MIDI soundtrack change is not relevant for the Gameplay section. Since it is already mentioned in the Development section, it can just be removed here.
  • Took these all under advisement as well. You're right that the soundtrack part is both off topic and redundant here, and as a bonus, I was able to improve the paragraphing as you suggested later. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plot
  • ... the Captain experiments with ancient Precursor artifacts, and creates a new ship that can instantly "warp" between stars without hyperspace. – Unnecessary comma and quotes (link Warp drive if necessary).
  • The Captain eventually traces the origins of the hyperspace collapse to the galactic core, and assembles an alliance of ten alien races to investigate the unexplored quadrant. – "galactic core" is a duplicate link and the comma should be removed as well.
  • "inter-dimensional" should be "interdimensional" (occurs twice)
Development / Hiring and continuity
  • Briefly mention that Accolade published Star Control II and that Ford and Reiche were of developer Toys for Bob (which is mentioned later on).
  • Link George MacDonald (game designer) and Michael J. Lindner.
  • Legend Entertainment also consulted with Ford and Reiche ... – "Legend Entertainment" is used in full here but you use "Legend" just before and after that. Consider striking the 'Entertainment' here for consistency.
  • MacDonald's quote is a full sentence at the source, so the punctuation should be within the quotation marks (MOS:LQ).
Development / Design and production
  • ... a concept document was created by Legend Entertainment founder Mike Verdu – "co-founder".
  • Link animatronic.
  • "SOTAFX" is a company name and should not be in italics.
  • "rendered in CGI" feels like an "ATM machine" situation. Consider "created digitally" (and maybe link that to Computer-generated imagery).
  • Link "blue screen" to Chroma key, "miniature film sets" to Miniature effect
  • Link "isometric" to Isometric video game graphics and remove "pseudo-3D"; "isometric" already infers as much.
  • After that sentence, swap the refs for numerical ordering.
  • "in order to" is usually a filler. I recommend a simple "to".
  • with a different cast from Star Control II is ambiguous. If it means that Star Control II had different voice actors, use "with a cast different from [that of] Star Control II".
  • Link soap operas.
  • Swap the refs after the soundtrack sentence.
  • In the release sentence, replace "Fall" per MOS:SEASON, amend the release date source as noted above, and swap the release and delay reason fragments for flow (e.g. "It was delayed to the complexity ... and finally published on ...").
  • Remove "Sony"; feels redundant here and fixes SEAOFBLUE.
  • but the console port was canceled during development -> but both ports were canceled; "during development" is unnecessary since the cancelation is what stops the development.
  • A version for the Macintosh -> A version for Mac OS (Macintosh is not a singular device).
  • Consider mentioning the 2017 Steam release ([3]) alongside the GOG one.
Reception
  • PC Game Parade should be italicized in the reviews table.
  • PC Games as it is used here is an English-language magazine, while the PC Games on Wikipedia is an unrelated German publication. PC Games should be unlinked in all places (review table, prose, citations) to avoid confusion.
  • Upon its release in 1996, Star Control 3 was considered a commercial success. – "Upon its release in 1996" can be dropped as it would not be considered successful beforehand.
  • PC version -> "MS-DOS version"; Macs are also PCs.
  • calling it one of the best games of the year -> "of 1996".
  • Link Macworld.
  • ... and rated it lower than the PC version -> "than the MS-DOS version".
  • by the additional multi-player mode -> "multiplayer" for consistency.
  • Found another couple reviews while looking for the release date stuff. These suggestions are all helpful and I made good use of them. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reception / Legacy
  • GOG.com should be unlinked (duplicate link) and not be in italics.
  • The GOG store description appears to be penned by Stardock (the re-publisher) rather than GOG. While the attribution should be fixed, I feel like removing might be the better option as this is a primary-source statement.
  • Critical Hit describes ... – "desribes" -> "described".
  • Critical Hit's quote should end with the punct inside the quote marks as it is a complete sentence at the source.
  • More importantly: Is Critical Hit a reliable source?
  • "suggests" -> "suggested"; "explains" -> "explained.
  • Link and italicize Kotaku and consider crediting the article's author.
  • ... felt that the new character design lost the charm of Star Control 2's digital paintings. – Star Control 2 -> Star Control II for consistency.
  • Italicize Hardcore Gaming 101, "describes" -> "described", correct the contraction "it's", and punct again inside quote marks.
  • Star Control 3 thus marked the last official installment to the series. – What about Star Control: Origins?
  • I addressed most of these. The GOG piece is actually from when Atari was the publisher, but I added a second link to a GOG news update, to drive home that the comment is independent and reliable. The last installment is what several sources say. For context, there was a big intellectual property split, and Origins was unable to license any of the content from the original games. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other
  • In the citations, "Staff" and "[Outlet] staff" credits are redundant and should be removed.
  • Some citations use the |publisher= field incorrectly. For example, |publisher=Playstation Plus Vol 1 Issue 10 should be |magazine=PlayStation Plus, |volume=1, |issue=10. I believe this occurs seven times.
  • The citation for Star Control 3 on GOG is duplicated (#39/#50). This will have been resolved already if you removed the ill-attributed GOG statement above.
  • I am not a huge fan of the paragraphing in the Gameplay and Plot sections. It looks a bit messy and a look akin to the Development and Reception sections would be ideal. I will not make my support dependent on this, though.

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 21:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your patience. I cleaned up some of the references, and that should hopefully address some of the comments. Some of the changes allowed me to create a better flow and improve the paragraphing as well. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your changes. I will take a proper look at them as soon as I can (hopefully later today). Regarding the release dates: The September 24, 1996, date for the MS-DOS version appears to be correct, but it should at least cite the original press release instead of Metacritic. The Mac version was released in April 1998 according to MacAddict no. 22, p. 67. I also found this press release if you want to add some context to that. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 08:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: Wow, I'm glad I found that MacAddict source. Can't believe I missed the date in there, and thanks for double-checking the sources. Even bigger thanks for digging up those press releases. Keep me posted and hopefully we can wrap this up soon. The 25th anniversary is just a few weeks away. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Going through my original points, I believe two have not been addressed:
  • The Gameplay section still mentions the star map to be "Super VGA". I feel as though the color space used is irrelevant here, and it is a bit misleading to point this out specifically for the map as seemingly the entire game uses SVGA colors.
  • I am still not convinced that Critical Hit (#46) is a reliable source. The site has no editorial policy to speak of and the editor (and author of that specific article) gives the impression of "gamer-turned-writer" rather than an experienced journalist.
In addition to the above, I believe the GOG store page source (#45) is now obsolete as there are sufficient secondary sources for its two claims. IceWelder [✉] 18:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@IceWelder: Those two suggestions are well taken. I removed the Super VGA comment, and also removed Critical Hit. I will start a discussion at WP:VG/RS just in case someone knows more, and the source could be restored. I've gotten some conflicting advice on sources through the FA process, so I'd rather err on the side of more, for those who want them. Thanks again, and hopefully that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. At the current stage, I feel comfortable supporting the nomination. IceWelder [✉] 21:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the review. Happy editing! Shooterwalker (talk) 22:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second check-in with coordinators[edit]

  • @FAC coordinators: : Wouldn't normally be this persistent, but I'm mindful of the anniversary day approaching. Last we checked, a coordinator said it would be helpful to have one more general review, and a source review. A few weeks later, no specific source review, but we did get two general reviews, which did get into issues around citations and verification. I'm hoping this is enough, but let me know if you have any advice to get more reviewers if they are needed. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, looking okay, will probably go through in more detail later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, still need that formal source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've already done a regular review, but if it's in a hurry, I can check out sourcing? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you can check source reliability and formatting that'd be great, Lee. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Since I was just looking over this, some comments:
Due to lacking access, I will have to leave the book pages for #8/#30 and the questionable {{cite video game}} to Shooterwalker. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 15:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lee Vilenski: I wasn't sure what the policy is around magazines at archive.org, though I thought those were all fair use and policed by that site. I still went ahead and removed them to be safe. As a reviewer I sometimes find it hard to do any kind of source check for articles that are cited to paper sources. I included them in the first place because I thought it might make it easier to do spotchecks, so here is a diff if it helps.
  • I was able to fix the other remaining issues including the page numbers. Thanks to IceWelder for helping with the translation, and indeed, CNET Gamecenter is considered a reliable source when it comes to game sales data. Thanks so much for taking the source-check on. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took five statements and checked the citations for those facts, and saw no issues, so happy to support based on sourcing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much. @FAC coordinators: hopefully between the source reviews and the other general reviews, we are good to proceed. Let me know if you'd like to see anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2021 (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/Star_Control_3/archive1&oldid=1041516720"