Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/First-person shooter

First-person shooter

A few of us are hoping to get this article to FA status within a month or two. In preparation for that, we'd appreciate a close look at the prose, and any other formatting or style issues that might be holding this article back. Feel free to look for gaps or inaccuracies in the research too. Randomran (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the picture next to the Multiplayer section nessecary? GamerPro64 (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - (from across the way over at WP:MILHIST—and a guy who remembers playing Dark Forces and Duke Nukem 3D)
- In the lead section, "the most popular" is repeated twice in close proximity at the end of the last paragraph. Maybe change the first instance to "with the Halo series becoming the most popularly and critically acclaimed console titles" and the second instance to "...one of the most widely played" (that will kill 2 birds with one stone: making "popular" and "critical" grammatically equivalent—i.e., both adverbs, instead of one adverb and one noun, and address the repetitiveness issue)
- In the "Definition" section, it talks about Metroid 3/Deus Ex being of an ambiguous genre - "are variously considered first person shooters or defined differently". Can you be a little more specific as to the genres critics say the games are?
- In the "Rise in popularity" section, there's a line that doesn't quite make sense: "It was wildly popular, with its multiplayer features causing problems for companies whose networks were used to play the game." It makes it sound as though the multiplayer features causing problems was the reason is was popular; maybe change "with" to "but" or "however".
- The images all look good, license-wise (although I'm not sure if the plain text FU-rationales are acceptable to the guys who check images at FA—might want to convert them to the pretty templates just to be safe). However, you'll want to move a few of them over to the left, for some balance.
The article looks pretty good so far. Just a little more fine-tuning of the prose, and it'll be ready. Parsecboy (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for checking in! I figure the FUC stuff is easy to fix if anyone raises a stink at the FA nomination... but otherwise, I incorporated your suggestions to improve the prose. Hopefully a few other people can help us tighten that up. Thanks for getting your hands dirty. Randomran (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might consider simply removing the fair-use images, as it turns out there's loads of free FPS screens on commons: [1]. bridies (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More free images can help us for sure. But dropping all copyrighted images would be a detriment to the article, IMO. 4X is a featured article, and managed to get away with three copyrighted images, and three free images. Battlezone and Wolfenstein are fine, especially because those images serve a historical purpose that can't be replaced by any other image. Randomran (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree it would be somewhat detrimental in illustrative terms and I would also prefer to keep them. There's one or two primitive FPS vehicle games akin to Battlezone, but still not quite the real deal. I was thinking of FAC's reputation for stringency on copyright/fair-use matters, but if 4X got away with a few images then I guess it should be fine. bridies (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's as much a question of quality as it is of quantity. MOO has to be in 4X as much as Wolfenstein is in FPS, because they're both what defined the genre. The same way we were able to include Civ in 4X, we might get away with an image of Half Life in the lead of FPS since it's the best selling FPS (as far as I know). We may as well ask for something more complete and make a strong argument that they're necessary, while still staying remain flexible in the face of the FA nomination. Randomran (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]