Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sinistar: Unleashed/archive2

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 Ian Rose 08:35, 17 November 2012 [1].

Sinistar: Unleashed

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sinistar: Unleashed is a 1999 action space shooter video game for Microsoft Windows. The title was designed by Marc Michalik and Walter Wright and developed at GameFX, a small studio composed of former members of Looking Glass Studios—the developers of System Shock 2. Originally titled Out of the Void, development of the game began in 1997 and had no relationship with the Sinistar franchise. After licensing the franchise from Midway Games that year, the studio shifted the focus of the game and developed it as a sequel to the original Sinistar game, developed and released by Williams in 1982. I have addressed all the issues raised in the previous FAC and I think it is now up to standard. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Was it released outside of North America?
AFAIK, No.
It clearly was. Check Mobygames. - hahnch e n 02:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, how did i miss that. Thanks. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 02:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and had no relationship with the Sinistar franchise" - I think you should link Sinistar here, when it's first mentioned, as opposed to in the subsequent sentence.
Done.
"The game contains 24 main levels, each with its own unique boss called the Sinistar, and an additional five hidden bonus levels, making a total of 29 levels in the game." - how are the bonus levels opened? (might be worth mentioning) And is there a source for this?
I have added a little more information about the bonus levels.
You should get more clarification when it was released, see if you can get a confirmed date. The bit how a demo came out in September, supposedly after the release, is confusing.
~~Yes, it is confusing but I can't get it more clarified. The games supposedly shipped on August 31. Then IGN reports a release date of September 14.~~
I updated the article: It was released on September 15, although several sources say August 31.
"this was "somewhat to the detriment of the final product."' - why?
Good. Well, the source says: "Rather than significantly alter the structure of the original game, as Activision did with its Battlezone remake, the developers have stayed true to the game's arcade roots, somewhat to the detriment of the final product." (GameSpot review, Ref #2) I assume that he said it was somewhat to the detriment of it because the game, when trying to stay true to its origins, failed to live up the the gaming standards and expectations already established for games in 1999.

Those are the biggest things I noticed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Answers above. — Ṟ Ṉ™ 09:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Alright, I've started my read through, I'll make some copyedits as well. Here are some initial comments:
You should cite the quotes in the lead. Also, you might want to scale it back to just a couple.
Rewored one to avoid quotation.
I'd delink "action" here: [[Action game|action]] [[space shooter]] video game, since space shooters are a type of action game, right?
Done.
"the developers of System Shock 2." This might be a bit trivial for the lead.
Removed.
"Sinistar: Unleashed received mixed critical reception when released, with critics lauding its graphics as "unquestionably beautiful", and calling the game a "graphical powerhouse". Several critics" Some repetition here "critical... critics... critics"
Reworded.
"as a result of similarities with the previous game, the repetitiveness of the gameplay." I'm not sure I understand--they were unhappy with the repetitiveness because it was similar to the previous game? I would think they'd be unhappy with the repetitiveness solely because it was repetitive?
Reworded.
Will post more comments soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"GameFX shifted the focus of the game and developed it as a sequel to the original Sinistar game, which was developed and released by Williams in 1982." There's some repetition of "developed" here.
Done.
"The game contains 24 main levels, each with its own unique boss called the Sinistar, and an additional five hidden bonus levels, making a total of 29 levels in the game." This feels a bit wordy, is there a good way to tighten it up?
Reworded a bit, do not know how to tighten it more.
"Otherwise, the Sinistar will arrive through the jumpgate once activated" once what is activated? The jumpgate or sinistar?
Reworded to "the Sinistar will arrive through the activated jumpgate and..."
"Sinibombs are obtained by harvesting the asteroids in the same fashion as the Sporg to power up the jumpgate." I'm confused about "as the Sporg" here. As the Sporg what?
Reworded to "as the Sporg do".
"Sinistar: Unleashed was announced by THQ in February 1999, after licensing the Sinistar franchise from Midway Games two years prior." After who licensed the franchise?
THQ licensed the franchise. Reworded.
"A demo for the game was released in September 1999. This was the second demo that GameFX released and included several gameplay and technical enhancements over the first demo" Was the first demo for Sinistar or another game?
Reworded.
"IGN reported on 3 September 1999 that the game had gone gold,[12] and it was subsequently released on 15 September 1999.[13]" Could you explain what it means to go gold here? Mark Arsten (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Explained. Thanks for the review. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check that the citation numbers are in ascending order.
Fixed.
I feel like the reception section isn't very well organized. I'd suggest trying to reorganize to group reviews with similar themes together.
Well, it'll be a bit hard working on this.
"(although he considered them "more of a checklist than an actual asset")" this quote needs a citation.
I have added the citation.
"Vincent Lopez from IGN, as well as other critics, commented on the game's similarity to its predecessor and complimented its graphics and the addition of a wide variety of weapons (although he considered them "more of a checklist than an actual asset") as well as other technical features." This is a bit of a long sentence, I'd suggest breaking it up and trying to explain each part a bit more clearly.
Reworded. Will expand a bit soon.
"Additionally, the technical capacity of the game allowed "more than 25 uniquely dynamic enemies ... controlled by advanced AI and their own arsenal of weapons, deadly attacks and evil personalities."[5] The game was optimized for the then-recently released Pentium III processors from Intel[6] to allow the "lighting and geometry transformation engine to process more detail faster."[7]" I think you should identify who's being quoted in-text here.
Don't know exactly what to do. The first is taked from an article that has no author and the second quote is from a press release, but it is outside quotes in the original text, so I can't attribute it to C Noah Davis, chief technology officer of THQ. What I can do is state that "THQ revealed that the game was optimized for the then-recently released Pentium III processors from Intel..."
"At first, the project had no connection to the Sinistar franchise and featured a different gameplay design, although it shared the same graphic structure as the final game." Different gameplay design than what?
Done.
"Development of Sinistar: Unleashed, originally entitled Out of the Void, began in 1997 and was handled by GameFX, a small game developer consisting of former members of Looking Glass Studios, creators of System Shock 2." I'd suggest breaking this into two sentences.
Done.
Ok, finished my first read through, it's getting there! Mark Arsten (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have fixed all above [or tried to]. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few more copyedits, hopefully I didn't change the meaning at all.
You should cite the quotes in the lead.
Did.
You don't need to cite consecutive sentences with the same ref, like you do in the first para of Development, but you should cite consecutive sentences with the same ref if they include direct quotes, like in the first para of Reception.
Did.
"These enemies are indicated on the radar with a dynamic set of coordinates that turn from white to red as the enemies approach." Some repetition of "enemies" here. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"A demo for the game was released in September 1999. This was the second demo that GameFX released of the game and included several gameplay and technical enhancements over the first one, showcasing the first two levels of the game." I'd suggest mentioning the first demo first, and then going on to the second.
I'm stuggling to find information about the first demo. Let me see what I can do.

You don't need to be too specific, maybe just begin by saying there were two demos and then describe the second. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"However, he considered them" What does "them" refer to here? Mark Arsten (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should attribute the quote in the first para of development in text. Just something like "AGH noted that..." Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done — ΛΧΣ21™ 23:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"AGH noted that..." It would be good to note when they noted this... during development? Before its release? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added: "During development of the game, AGH noted..." — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose/presentation/MOS, at least. I did another round of copyediting and I think the prose has reached a supportable level at this point. I'm not sure about the comprehensiveness issue that was cited in the last FAC, but the reception has certainly been expanded since then. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mark :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Having the fact that the game was written and released in 1999, the article is very well written, comprehensive (here and there) and most importantly very informational. As a non-player of this game gave me so much information about its concept. Good job Hahc21! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tom! :') — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments and source spotchecks:
On the Wolpaw review from GameSpot, I have a couple concerns. First, is it a good idea to quote the exact same two phrases in the lead and in the reception section? It seems like a non-quotation summary would be better in the lead, combined with removing the refs from it. The other semi-nitpicky detail is that you say: "He concluded that although the developers succeeded in capturing the arcade essence of the previous game, this was 'somewhat to the detriment of the final product.'[2]", but that quote is actually from the beginning of his review.
In the development section, "It was handled by GameFX, a small game developer consisting of former members of Looking Glass Studios, creators of System Shock 2.[6]" is not supported by the source.
Shortly after that, "According to GameFX, 'Sinistar: Unleashed's render-on-the-fly 3D visual effects are said to tower above the [then-]current generation of games. Advanced texture-mapping technology, plasma lighting effects, and particle systems make Sinistar: Unleashed much more than just a mere enhancement over the original.'[6]" That quote is misleading, because it makes it look like a direct quote from GameFX, when it is actually a paraphrase in the source. It's especially concerning because the first three words are also part of that same paragraph in the source, but are not in quotation marks. I'd say it either needs to be rewritten, or changed to say "AGH wrote, 'According to GameFX...'".
In the release section, it says:
- "Sinistar: Unleashed became the first high-end, technologically advanced game from THQ to be released for Microsoft Windows.[12]"
That is basically identical to the source, which says:
- "This is the first game in THQ's strategy to produce high-end, technologically advanced games for the PC."
My problem with this is that it is both essentially a copyright violation and a bit too peacock-sounding. A phrase like "high-end, technologically advanced game" is pure marketing and doesn't tell the reader anything meaningful.
If these problems can be addressed, I'll take another look. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. I have solved all the issues raised above. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All issues brought up by other reviewers have been taken care of and I don't really see anything else to hold it back. As another reviewer pointed out, this is very good for a game that was released in 1999, especially with trying to find information (I've had trouble trying to find information for a game released in 2005 and another in 2007). Great job! --JDC808 ♫ 05:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JDC! :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
- The image rationales look good.
- Link and/or explain "boss" in the lead and/or reception section.
- In the gameplay section, it says "The jumpgate is stationed at the center of the level, and the Sporg power it with energy crystals collected from the asteroids that appear sparsely along the sector.[3][4]" in the second paragraph and then "Sinibombs are obtained by harvesting the asteroids, as done by the Sporg, to power up the jumpgate.[3][4]" in the third paragraph, which is unnecessary repetition. It needs to be trimmed or rewritten. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 06:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have fixed all. Linked boss in the lead and rewrote the sentence. Thanks for the comments. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support now, with nods to quality of sourcing, prose, and coverage. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Torchiest! :) — ΛΧΣ21™ 16:16, 16 November 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.