Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ur-Quan/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) 19 July 2021 [1].

Ur-Quan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the main antagonist from Star Control II. This article is on the short side as the character is from the pre-internet era: not only before journalists had any deep analysis of a game's story, but arguably before any game character had enough depth to analyze. But there are enough later reviewers who remember this character as a sort of historic turning point, inspiring a later generation of game developers. I focused the weight of the article on the biggest real-world impact, rather than an exhaustive look of plot details, and feel confident it still meets our comprehensiveness requirements. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Aoba47

[edit]
Resolved comments
  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image and the images used in the article itself.
  • I am not familiar with Star Control so apologies if this is obvious. Is there a reason for using a screenshot from a fangame as opposed to one from the official games?
  • This part, an intelligent race of giant predatory caterpillars, leaders of a hierarchy of battle thralls, reads a little awkwardly since it is two separate descriptions tied together by a comma.
  • As someone who has never played (or really heard of these games), I am not really sure what this part, a traumatic past that lead them to fiercely seek their own security, from the lead means. Could you clarify this for me?
  • For this part, The Ur-Quan's military doctrine becomes a subject of intense internal conflict, could it be phrased instead as The Ur-Quan's military doctrine leads to intense internal conflict or something similar? The current wording seems a little off to me.
  • For this part, In Star Control 3, developed by a different team, I believe it should be which was developed instead.
  • I was somewhat confused by this part, they ally with the player against a different antagonist and their role is scaled back, as there is really no context about the player or overarching story behind these games. Would it be possible to add something brief (like a single sentence) to clarify how these aliens fit into the player's story?
  • I am uncertain about the use of modern in this part, and has influenced other modern space games, per MOS:CURRENT. Could it be possible to either clarify the time period or provide examples of these games (or possible both)?
  • For this part, they are praised for their surprising depth and humanity, I would clarify in the prose who is doing the praising. I am assuming that it is critics, but it would be nice to be specific.
  • I am not entirely sure "Background" is the best name for the section as it seems to more so focus on the characters' roles in the game. Something like "Appearances" would seem more accurate to the section's content to me.
  • I am confused about this sentence: Their biological origins are similar to solitary predators such as the praying mantis, who are naturally limited in their social behaviors. Is this mantis comparison made in the context of the game? If not, then I would move it down to the "Concept and creation" part as this section seems to be more focused on their roles in the game.
  • I think genetic engineering could be wikilinked.
  • For either of these two points, Prior to the events of the games and Much later, the Ur-Quan led a successful slave revolt, could you provide a more exact time frame as it is very vague.
  • Why is Hierarchy capitalized? Is it a proper noun in the context of this game?
  • After reading this part, Star Control II begins following the war from the first game, I was left wondering what this war was. I would provide more context to readers who know nothing about this game.
  • I was confused by this part, the Ur-Quan join an alliance with the player, as the article does not establish who the player is and their relationship in regards to the Ur-Quan.

These are my comment so far. My main concern is the article does not provide background on Star Control and reads like it was written for a reader already familiar with the game. Since I never heard of these games, I was honestly somewhat lost with the story. I will look through the rest of the article once the above comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those questions were really useful to help me find the right balance of information. The prior version tried to err on less, since I've seen lots of FA's fail due to WP:UNDUE weight on fictional details. But I tried to really clarify some of the plot details, splitting the "Description" section into a "Background" and "Appearances" subsection. I believe this should help distinguish between the characters' backstory, and the events of the game, with context as to what the games are about.
I used the re-written "Description" section to improve the lead, along with some of your other suggestions. I added Alt Text for the images. As an aside, the open source version is maintained by fans, but it's officially authorized by the developers as a faithful reproduction. The image avoids any copyright issues by pulling from the original game, and should be mostly indistinguishable.
Ready for more feedback when you have it. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank for addressing my comments. I will resume my review sometime tomorrow. I agree that it is best to brief with background context, and you have added the right to me (at least from my perspective). I have just one quick comment below, and just for clarity, my review will primarily focus on the prose:
  • I have a comment for this part, Besides their menacing and threatening persona, journalists have praised them for their surprising depth and humanity., in the lead. I do not think it is grammatically correct as the beginning phrase is tied to the noun of the next phrase so it reads like you are saying journalists having this menacing and threatening persona, which is obviously not the intention so I would reword this part to avoid this. Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to go back to this sentence: Their biological lineage is compared to solitary predators such as the praying mantis, who are naturally limited in their social behaviors. Is this comparison made in the game itself? If so, then I would attribute who makes the comparison, and if not, I would move it down to the "Concept and creation" section and attribute who makes this comparison. I look at the "Description" section as being entirely in-universe so that is why I am approach it this way. Also, mantis is linked twice in the article when it should only be linked on its first instance.
  • For this part, Reiche describes their character creation process, I believe it should be in past tense.
  • The first paragraph of the "Concept and creation" uses this sentence construction, which led, twice. This is super minor and admittedly quite nitpick-y, but I would change one of those two instance to avoid repetition as it was something that caught my eye while reading this section.
  • I do not think antagonist needs a wikilink as it seems like a universally understood concept. With that being said, I think a wikilink for synthesizer would be helpful as I can see some readers hearing the term but not fully knowing what is referencing.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Reception" section, I would identify the The A.V. Club reviewer in the first sentence with this source. Naming the publication in the first sentence and then the reviewer's name in the second sentence seems unnecessarily confusing as I can see a reader thinking they are too separate things and not understanding who William Hughes is.
  • The "Reception" section as a whole seems rather inconsistent with critics' names. Sometimes they are said in the prose while other times they are not. I would be consistent with one approach or another.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Reception" section, I am not sure the full GameSpot quote is needed. The way it is currently used seems a little off to me, especially since it repeats Ur-Quan a few times in the same sentence. I think the quote could be used in a better way, as it is a good one.
  • I'd be careful with how many times Ur-Quan is repeated. For instance, the Rock, Paper, Shotgun has three times and it makes the prose quite repetitive and not as engaging as it could be.

These are my comments up to the "Reception" section. I am still going through that part of the article and I will try to get through that tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, especially when I introduced a new grammatical error that makes it sound like the journalists have a menacing persona. SMH. Things should be more clear and less repetitive now.
The only edit I'm struggling with is the part about their biological evolution, which is presented in the game as an accepted fact. My original phrasing was "Their biological origins are similar to solitary predators..." and I based on your feedback I changed it to "Their biological lineage is compared to solitary predators..." and now I could write "Character X, Y, and Z have stated that their biological lineage is similar to solitary predators..." I do want to improve the clarity, but I think I'm starting to get too pedantic. If you feel that the "Description" section is already implied to be in-universe, then I suspect we can simplify this a lot. What's the simplest way to present their biological evolution as an in-universe fact? Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification about this. Since the game presents it as an "accepted fact", then the current wording should be fine. I was more uncertain if this was an observation made by a specific character or group, but the current wording is a better representation of how it is just a fact presented to the player as part of the world/story. Apologies for taking a while with this review, and thank you for your patience. The article looks to be in very good shape right now, but I want to read through it one more time to see if I have missed anything so I will post anything further by tomorrow. I hope you had a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words. It is important to remember that we are all volunteers here. I do have a tendency to forget that and it is important to know how to manage time on here. I have not gotten to re-read the article again today, but it is on my list for tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything in the "Reception" section should be in past tense. Here are some instances where things are in present tense (mentions the Ur-Quan for their role in one of the best video game endings and Laidlaw has praised the Ur-Quan). There are a few other instances of this so I would look through the entire section and change it to past tense as critics' reviews should be done in the past tense.
  • I would be careful about using "also" too much as it is mostly a filler word.
  • I would be careful with things like Echoing these rankings and This mirrored as it implies a strong connection between citations. For instance, I do not imagine that Hardcore Gaming 101 is deliberately "echoing these rankings" so I would be careful about implying connections between citations/reviewers that may not be entirely true.
  • The Hardcore Gaming 101 sentence in the first paragraph is missing a closing quotation mark.
  • The AllGame quote is very long, and I do not think it is encouraged to quote that amount of text from a citation. I would instead paraphrase and use the quote more sparingly.

After my above comments are completed, I believe I should be ready to support based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks again. I tried to incorporate all your suggestions. It's a thin line between a filler word and a transition, so I tried to vary the transitions to maintain the flow. I've also tried to be accurate: Hardcore Gaming 101 indeed says "the Ur-Quan are rightfully ranked among gaming’s greatest villains" in the context of their own praise. So I went with a more direct quote about the rankings, even though it's a tricky trade-off. I'm not crazy about excessive quotes, but they help readers to see what reviewers have actually said, and avoid confusion about whether they are reading a Wikipedia editor's opinion, or even a misquote. I did shorten some other quotes as you suggested. Either way, I hope I'm moving things in the right direction. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support the article for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 19:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will conduct soon. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some consistency issues here - sometimes authors are listed as Last, First other times as First Last. This should be consistent.
  • DeMaria 2018 needs page numbers
  • For Barton 2016 you have the page range as " pp. 203–", you seem to be missing the second page.
  • Escapist is listed as situational at WP:VGRS, although this may be due to a time frame when they exercised little oversight in '17 and '18; would Escapist's early (2006) work be considered high-quality RS?
  • What makes 1MoreCastle high-quality RS?
  • "Red Bull also highlighted the importance of the Ur-Quan in creating the classic game world of Star Control II.[33]" - Unsure why the opinion of an energy drink manufacturer would really be WP:DUE for an article about a video game character, unless Red Bull has dabblings into video games I'm not aware of.
  • Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_153#Reliable_source_check - suggests that PikiGeek is at least somewhat reliable, but does it meet the higher "high-quality RS" standard?
  • Sainsbury 2015 needs page numbers.
  • Suggest adding links to CRC Press and No Starch Press, as applicable

Conducted searches in several places and databases and found no indication that there is sizeable scholarly literature that has been omitted.

Will do the spot checks for source-text integrity and copyright at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ur-Quan/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 05:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! For the sources, I fixed the first/last formatting, the page numbers, and the links to publishers. As for the quality of the sources themselves:
  • The Escapist piece is written by Retro Gamer's John Szczepaniak, who is considered an expert in the industry. The piece focuses on interview material with the developers. It for sure isn't the volunteer-written material we need to be cautious of.
  • The Red Bull piece is written by Stuart Houghton, who is a journalist at Kotaku[2], Gizmodo[3], and the New Statesman[4]. I can understand how seeing "RedBull" could be odd at first glance, but they have robust involvement with games now.[5] It warrants a mention, which is the appropriate WP:WEIGHT.
  • I removed the 1MoreCastle reference. There's some evidence of editorial review, but it's less than clear.
  • I see no issue with the Chris Ullery piece for Pikimal. Ullery is a journalist for the Intelligencer[6] and the Bucks County Courier Times[7] (both published by Gannett). Pikimal is defunct, but had full-time editorial review.[8]
Hopefully that covers the sources. I was pretty careful and focused more on quality than quantity. Thanks for the spot check too, and let me know if you see anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Explanations for quality sound good, passing on the source review. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Don't use fixed px size
  • I just want to make sure I understand the explanation above re: the lead image. The design elements present in this image are indistinguishable from the original game? How would this avoid copyright issues - did the authorization to produce the game include license to release the graphics as CC? (The link from the image description that may explain this is not working). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the image, and yes, the images have been released under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license. Here's an archived link to the open source project's FAQ. (A really inconvenient time for the site to be down.) Let me know if you have any other questions. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if the images from the original game have been released CC, why not include images from the original game? And if the images from the original game have not been released CC, how could the images from the fan game which are visually indistinguishable have been licensed in that way? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is meant by the term "authorized"? Does it encompass release of intellectual rights, or no? Or was their participation to the extent to make that a moot point? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means their involvement has been extensive, yeah. It was their idea to release the game as open source. They worked with the open source community to do it, so it's a combination of the original creators and the wider community. They licensed the code and content on a free, perpetual non-commercial license. And when the project was finally made available, they published the licensing info that I linked above. The creators also made their stance clear in public that (direct quote) "our policy has been to let people do whatever they want, as long as they don’t turn our characters into mass murderers or make money with it." I didn't upload the image but it looks like the CC licensing information in the image is correct. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

[edit]

Having looked through the article, I don't see any major issues. The image problems are likely to be tackled above, many of the prose issues were corrected above, and the sources seem solid. A few points caught my attention;

  • You mention Red Bull. It is the drink specifically commenting on this, or the company? Not clear from the simple link.
  • Several of the citation sources, such as The Escapist and Ars Technica have articles, yet are not linked in citations.
  • Surprised this doesn't seem to have been raised, but there seems to be an overuse of quotes in the Reception section. While some quotes are understandable and necessary, having a quote in every sentence is clunky to read. Perhaps take a third of the quotes and paraphrase, and that would make the section flow better.
  • Perhaps include citations in image captions with statements, but I don't think this is compulsory.

Shooterwalker, other than that, it seems like a solid article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Went with most of your suggestions. Took out a few quotes – this came up in the GA review and I fixed it a bunch, but I took out a couple more for good measure. Thanks for the review and hopefully it's on its way to FA quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker: With the alterations, I think this is okay now. I'll give this a Pass. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • "Star Control series" I think it's worth adding "video game" here.
  • Do we really need to link Earth?
  • "During Star Control II,.." is that the "sequel" mentioned in the previous sentence? I'd link it there. If not, what was the sequel?
  • "into an civil war over" a civil war.
  • "unique ships in " are these spaceships?
  • "naturally limited in their social behaviors" what does this mean? Isn't every species?
  • Is that the best caterpillar image on all of Commons? I struggled to make it out.
  • utter -> complete?
  • "the 22nd Century" century
  • I don't think we need to link common words like human.
  • "planet Earth imprisoned" likewise.
  • "Star Control creators Paul..." image captions which are fragments don't take a full stop.
  • When using possessive apostrophe for an italicised word, use the {{'s}} template.
  • "saw a National Geographic image" should be italics.
  • Date formats should be consistent in the references.
  • Refs 23 and 25 work are erroneously formatted.

That's all I have on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the input. I addressed all your comments. Only exception was the image, which I chose as the one that most resembled the character design in the game. The refs should be properly formatted, and the phrasing fixed, with fewer superfluous links. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vaticidalprophet

[edit]

Placeholder, coming here from the urgents list. Will review. Looks good so far. Vaticidalprophet 17:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only minor notes:

  • 4th greatest game villains should be presented as "fourth" per MOS:NUMERAL.
  • Kurt Kalata approved of the game for adding the Ur-Quan to the player's alliance, but lamented their otherwise minimal role. Game magazine Pelit made a similar criticism, that the third game was left lacking a threat as memorable as the Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah. These wordings are somewhat odd. I particularly wonder if the latter source offers any opportunity to expand here, rather than just give us a rather abrupt and choppy sentence.
  • Non-Anglophone refs should use the lang= parameter in CS1.

Vaticidalprophet 17:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaticidalprophet: Made some quick fixes and glad it looks basically good. The part about their minor role in Star Control 3 was previously described a direct quote:
  • (from the source) "For as menacing as the Ur-Quan were in Star Control II, and how cool it is that they’re on your side in this game, they barely do anything here." -> summarized as: "Kurt Kalata approved of the game for adding the Ur-Quan to the player's alliance, but lamented their otherwise minimal role."
  • (from the source, via google translate) "Legend seems to be exhausted in the middle. The game lacks the Threat: in the second game, everything bad happened over time, and in the end, the kohr-ahs killed everyone else if the player just sat on their thumb. Now is (apparently) all the time in the world, and when the enemy just sits at home, it does shake the motivation." -> summarized as: "Game magazine Pelit made a similar criticism, that the third game was left lacking a threat as memorable as the Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah"
They really are brief mentions for a character demoted to a minor role. There isn't much to expand on, but I'm open to a rephrase if it would make some part of it more clear. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think if there isn't meaningful expansion potential, then the problem is probably in the phrasing. It's difficult to describe exactly, but it's somewhat choppy, especially the final sentence. The second source does seem to offer the opportunity for a somewhat broader statement than currently given, as it appears to be complaining about a general weakness in the antagonists of that game which the Ur-Quan play into by no longer being antagonists. Vaticidalprophet 18:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vaticidalprophet: Let me try rephrasing it to be a little less choppy:
  • Before: Star Control 3 was developed and written by a different team. Kurt Kalata approved of the game for adding the Ur-Quan to the player's alliance, but lamented their otherwise minimal role. Game magazine Pelit made a similar criticism, that the third game was left lacking a threat as memorable as the Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah.
  • After: Star Control 3 was developed and written by a different team. Kurt Kalata felt that the game failed to give the Ur-Quan a meaningful role, though he praised their transformation into an ally. Similarly, Pelit commented that Star Control 3 lacked an enemy as compelling as the Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah.
Doing my best to stay on topic and hit the real point, as this article is really about the Ur-Quan, and not about Star Control 3's new antagonist. Once we can find a suitable wording, I can re-add it to the article. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds fine :) Vaticidalprophet 01:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and added it. Thanks again for the review and hope that's everything. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support happily. Vaticidalprophet 21:52, 13 July 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
Prose
Additional comments

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) 13:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: The review is greatly appreciated. I think I was able to address all the comments, without overriding some of the concerns from previous reviewers. I'm trying not to get too pedantic while still making it clear that their history is fictional. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only outstanding bit I have is that the lede says that the Ur-Quan helped design the games for Stelaris and Mass Effect. I think that's a bit too generous. Star Fox did this, rather than these characters. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Lee Vilenski: Reading it again, I can see how it's overstated. I re-wrote it so it's clear that the character inspired other similar concepts in those games (the reapers, the battle thralls, the slave shield), rather than making it sound like the entire games were inspired by one character. Hope that's clearer now. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check-in from nominator

[edit]

Eager to wrap this one up and work on more featured articles. That said, I am also patient with this process. The article now has the support of multiple reviewers, including a source and image review. I count 6 or 7 supports (depending on whether the image review is supportive or neutral), with zero opposition after 7 weeks. Looking for some feedback from a coordinator when they have time. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Try {{@FAC}} to attract our attention. There does indeed seem to be a consensus. Promoting.
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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ur-Quan/archive1&oldid=1034457213"