Wikipedia:Peer review/System Shock 2/archive2

System Shock 2

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I believe this article is getting closer to FA quality, but is not yet there. As such, I request that reviewers read the article and respond with FA quality suggestions and improvements. Thanks, Noj r (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 September 2008.

Review by Masem

Besides a good copyedit, two things stood out: First, watch your abbreviations, I see "OSA" used without defining it first and a few places where things are abbreviated but never reused (FTL, I believe). Second, I think the gameshot image can use a more descriptive caption; explain that the slotted inventory system is at the top, and other features of the display. But sources look good, images look fine, I think it's ready. --MASEM 02:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about a copy-edit. I have already gone through the gameplay section and attempted some fixes. Please inform me if they helped. On the issue of the acronyms, we are never explicitly told what OSA or OS means. This has been discussed before, and the best I could do was create a reference for the first instance of each acronym explaining that it is never listed. Would an inline explanation be better? I have also expanded the caption on the picture. I hope it is better. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. -- Noj r (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Mendaliv

Well, one thing that bugs me is the "Legacy" section.

The sentence, "As a result, System Shock 2 is widely regarded as one of the greatest games ever made and has been inducted into several Hall of Fames".
1. I think "widely regarded" should be more specific; widely regarded by whom?
2. "one of the greatest games ever made" is substantiated by four refs, three of which are subsequent years of the same IGN top-100 list. It might be best to drop the prior years unless you want to say that it was on the IGN top-100 list for three years.
3. "Hall of Fames" is a bad plural; "Halls of Fame" is more appropriate.
4. "several Halls of Fame"; we see two refs substantiating this, one of which is a top-25 list and isn't specifically calling itself a HoF.
The sentence, "The title is also widely recognized as one of the most frightening games ever made".
1. "widely recognized"; same problem as above, by whom? While it's referenced I think it should be attributed in the text.
The next paragraph is a perfect example of what I think should be done with the "widely regarded" problems above.
The SS3 and BioShock sections ought to be flipped to maintain chronological order in their prose. The BS paragraph begins in 2007 while the SS3 one begins in 2006.

The rest of the article is pretty damn good. The one thing I'd like to see mentioned is the story about Levine forcing in the Psi-monkeys even though it didn't make any sense and wasn't explained except in the basketball easter egg (which might also bear mentioning). I wish I had a reference for the Levine thing. I'll poke around for that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I expanded the "greatest, frightening" statements to include the names of the publications. I also fixed the references and placed them in the right places. I did not know they were jumbled up, haha. The "hall of fames" grammatical error is completely embarrassing. I didn't even think about it :0 Thanks for reviewing the article. Hope to hear from you at the FA review soon. -- Noj r (talk) 05:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]