Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Perfect Dark

Perfect Dark

Comprehensive, I believe. Factually accurate; I even had these guys check it out here; neutral, to the best of my ability; extensively cited, as you will see; and now, stable. I'm hesitant to call this a self-nom because the article has been around for over three years and many people have made very valuable contributions, but of late I have been working on this extensively so I should declare my vested interest. Nevertheless I believe this is now a very strong article, although equally I'm happy to hear any further suggestions. What do you think?

• Comment. I suggest you elaborate on the storyline as its hard for someone who isn't familiar with the series to fully comprehend it. For example, when the article discusses that "Perfect Dark is set in the year 2023 against the backdrop of an interstellar war between two races: the Maians, who resemble the stereotypical "greys" of alien abduction folklore, and the Skedar, reptile-like extraterrestrials who can disguise themselves as humans", could you extend on why the two are fighting?--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 19:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can remember, that particular point is never really explained. Nevertheless the actual story is extremely intricate and labyrinthine; I compressed it to its current state (it was previously enormous; see here) as a result of the Peer Review suggestions. However if you think I compressed it a little too much than it could certainly be expanded again.
    Soo 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Object.
  • Images need fairuse rationales
    • Done.
      Soo 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • ok so next issues re images: are they really fair use? e.g. the maian sos pic seems to be used to decorate the article instead of being related to the text adjacent to it. i dont see anything about "maians" there? also the multiplayer section really needs to show the splitscreen view it talks about, as does the customised ingame appearance part (unless that maian thing is supposed to represent that).
    • You're right. I've trimmed it right back to just one screenshot. I'm working on getting another shot to illustrate multiplayer mode, but this doesn't seem like a big deal. I'm pretty sure the box art and title screen are indeed covered by fair use, so I've left those.
      Soo 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • auto-aiming redlink: unwiki it and explain what it is in this article
    • I hope this is explained sufficiently now.
      Soo 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • ok but the writing quality is poor: "With increases in difficulty, more objectives are added, less ammunition can be collected from weapons, enemies become more accurate and inflict more damage, and the optional "auto-aiming", in which the game corrects slightly aiming errors automatically, becomes less effective" is just one example of weak writing, best to get a through copyedit of the whole article.
    • That's not a great sentence, I've replaced it. However I disagree that the writing is weak in general; can you give more specific examples?
      Soo 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • e.g. "in which the game corrects slightly aiming errors automatically" - slightly or slight?, "an additional Perfect Dark difficulty becomes available" - you mean difficulty level? there is more that other readers will spot.
  • explain the multiplyer and co-op modes better: is it splitscreen? how does it compare with goldeneye's?
    • Hopefully expanded now.
      Soo 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • still needs more. splitscreen horizontally or vertically? what if 3 people play? 4? is there any slowdown in multiplayer? any technical differences from singleplayer?
    • I really don't think the exact way that the screen is split is all that important, and I already explained that the screen can be split horizontally or vertically. As far as I know, it uses the same splitscreen method for 3/4 play as almost every other game. There is slowdown in multiplayer but again it's not really that interesting or surprising. I'm not sure what you mean by technical differences; the player controls are identical though, and the weapons etc. work the same.
      Soo 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • isnt the multiplayer what makes this and goldeneye unique? so it needs to explain better precisely how 4-player splitscreen works. and if i dont know "every other game" or know anything about how such a 4-player mode works, neither will most readers. slowdown is the type of technical "behind-the-scenes" issue that should be addressed in order to make the article as non-fancrufty as possible.
    • I really don't agree. The way the screen is split is obvious to anyone who has played the game and unimportant if you don't play the game. It's the sort of implementation detail that I don't think an encyclopaedia article benefits from including. It sets a precident for the inclusion of masses of trivial detail; are we also to explain how the menu system works between levels, for example? It just doesn't matter that much. On the other hand I think you are right about the slowdown. I think I will discuss that in the more technical "Engine" section, where it feels most appropriate.
      Soo 12:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I've added considerably more material on the famous frame rate issue.
        Soo 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • sentence about influences on joanna dark needs to be clearer, e.g. what is "dishonored"? a film? what is "the x-files"? make it simple for non-gamers
    • Should be esier now.
      Soo 01:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • dishonored is still not explained, is snowball a game? how does a fps take inspiration from a text adventure anyway?
    • Dishonored is now explained, and there's always an IMDB reference if the reader really wants to know more. I assume Martin Hollis meant that Joanna Dark's persona was influenced by the character in the text adventure, but it's not for me to say.
      Soo 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • what did "red and black" mean?
    • I'm not sure it meant anything directly (more just the general connotations of those colours), but I've added IGN's thoughts to the article, since their interpretation is presumably as good as anyone's.
      Soo 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • expand on the torch. did it make it into the game or was it dropped?
    • Fixed.
      Soo 23:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • 1.3 millions sales, is that good or bad? i believe it underperformed, right? in which case what reasons were given? why did it not sell as many as goldeneye?
    • I've explained now that the N64 was already in its twilight years, which explains its considerably lower sales compared to its predecessor. I'm not sure whether it underperformed in terms of sales; Nintendo never stated how many they expected to sell, and sales figures in general are hard to obtain. It risks introducing a POV element if I comment on whether its sales were "good or bad".
      Soo 01:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • you shouldnt comment but you should find a quote from somewhere commenting about its sales.
    • I can't find any such quote. You're assuming from the Rare article that the game underperformed, but there's no real evidence to support that.
      Soo 19:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • the link on the talk page does have some discussion about poor sales, i believe it could be worked into the article.
    • I've added some information about total global sales, which was previously a glaring omission.
      Soo 12:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • please pick some choice quotations from the reviews, both negative and positive, to illustrate the overall response.
    • Done.
      Soo 01:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • did any spokesmen/women comment about the sales?
    • Not that I can find, and I had to search really hard for sales information.
      Soo 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • the "rare software" wikipedia article mentions its sales were disappointing so there must be sources.
    • More likely that the Rare article includes unsourced remarks; that's not really the fault of the Perfect Dark article.
      Soo 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Actually all the Rare article says is that it did not sell as well as its predecessor, because the N64 was coming to the end of its shelf life anyway. This is reflected in the current version of the article.
        Soo 16:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • more must be said about the impact of this game on n64 sales and n64 success, as you claim it was a "launch title" if i read it right? was the underperformance of this game a reason the n64 failed? any industry honchos talked about it?
    • I think this misunderstanding stemmed from the poor lead, which I think I've now fixed (see below).
      Soo 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • there needs to be a section on "legacy": here you should discuss the influence of the game: what other games were inspired by it; was the engine re-used elsewhere; did joanna dark become a lara-croft type pop-culture figure?; it had a sequel, discuss it (in summary syle); any other appearances of perfect dark stuff in other games; what did rare do next?; what was the long-lasting impact of the game, looking back now from 2006, on the games industry?
    • Good idea. What do you think of the new Legacy section?
      Soo 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • i like the timesplitters stuff but the section still needs fleshing out. e.g. unwikilink the novel and describe it (in summary-style) here. its plot, does it feature joanna, does it feature any locations from the game etc? any words from greg rucka? perfect dark zero has its own article but still should be more detailed here. how is it different/simiar to its predecessor? "timesplitters bears many gameplay similarities" like what?
    • I've expanded on this now. I don't want to expand too much because the various other products are only broadly related to the topic of the article. This is especially true of PDZ whose article is likely to grow considerably in the coming months.
      Soo 18:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • its necessary to take a 360-degree approach to the article, this means including its influence in full. PD is more than just a single n64 game, it launched a franchise, so the "legacy" section should discuss it, including the novel and a (brief) summary of the sequel as above. the article needs to read as an encycloarticle, not as a "game guide" which can be be found anywhere, so the sections Development, Release and Legacy are the most important ones and therefore be given the biggest weight.
    • There is a brief summary, and I want it to remain brief.
      Soo 10:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • lead doesnt summarize the article well. it even talks about things like gameboy color that are never mentioned in the rest of the article.
    • Improved now, I hope. Thanks to
      Soo 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • what happened to the gameboy color info? its now disappeared completely, meaning the article is now non-comprehensive.
    • Sorry about this, I've been working on an improved section on the GBC version, since it seems unlikely that it will get a full article to itself any time soon. I've now added this back into the article.
      Soo 16:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

Zzzzz 21:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've turned your comment into a list to make it easier to address the points, I hope you don't mind.

Soo 01:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• article is much improved, unfortunately i still have to object based on the following:
  • multiplayer is still not clear to me: how does the screen look when 3 people play and when 4 people play? i assume the screen is divided into four conrerns when 4 people play but this is never mentioned in the article. is there a black box in one corner if 3 people play?
  • "the same splitscreen method for 3/4 play as almost every other game" - how many other games have 3/4 play on one screen? list some of them, is it common/uncommon?
    • I still think details like this are unimportant but I'll add this in, since you feel so strongly about it.
      Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • i would expect more games other than timeplsitters to have been influenced by, or at least reference, perfect dark in some way. at the moment it reads like the game was very insignificant in gaming history, i think its significance needs to be expanded on in the "legacy" section.
    • To be honest, your inference is correct. PD was nowhere near as innovative as GE; most of its innovations were technical and had been accomplished before on other platforms (eg the PC).
      Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • did it innovate anything, do anything unique or new, that was later adopted in other games?
    • See above :)
      Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • i would like to see a quote from rucka about writing the book. surely he must have said something about how he set about writing a book based on PD?
    • Done :)
      Soo 15:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • dont external link to "an extract" from the book, put it in External Links
    • Done.
      Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • lead should be MAX 3 pgraphs, no more.
    • Four paragraphs is appropriate for an article of this length (~40000 chars); see
      Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "firing range" doesnt need to be wikilinked (or link to "shooting range" instead).
    • Not everyone will know what a firing range is (especially outside North America). I've bypassed the redirect though, as you suggest.
      Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • engine section should be more technical in order to distinguish it from "gameplsy" section and justify its place inside the "development" section.
    • As discussed elsewhere on this page, the line between Engine and Gameplay is naturally pretty narrow. This is especially the case here since clearly we can't really know many of the technical details of how the renderer works, etc. Some things, such as Dolby Surround, clearly influence the gameplay but are probably separate from it. Some things have ended up in the Engine section because they flow more naturally there, even though they are probably more gameplay points, e.g. "Like GoldenEye, Perfect Dark uses location-based damage; for example, a shot to the torso causes more damage than a shot to the limb. However, unlike GoldenEye, a headshot on a guard is instantly fatal on any difficulty level." The first sentence is clearly technical, the second sentence is clearly gameplay, but it would seem quite unnatural to split them up. Really I wouldn't worry about this too much.
      Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • still some problems with the overall flow of the sentences, eg this sentence comes out of nowhere in the "legacy" section: "More recent reviews of the game have not been so positive. For example, Revolution Europe described it as having a "lack of imagination and chronic design flaws". previous sentences are not even talking about reviews. wouldnt this bit be better in the reviews section anyway?
    • The point is that, while the game was well received at the time perhaps due to the enormous amount of hype, modern critics don't consider it all that great. That quote is taken from an article about Rare, not a review of PD, so to me that's more relevant to legacy. I've rephrased the sentence to make that clearer.
      Soo 12:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • steven poole's trigger happy comments would be a *very* reliable source for comments about the game, and would really serve to bring this article out of gamecruft-realms and into FA-territory, i would like to wait for Nick_R's additions as mentioned on the talk page before promoting to FA. Zzzzz 12:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Object EVERY image has a copyright violation.. not exactly FA standard. This also just failed GA nominations, so it's not likely to pass, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC) I'm still objecting this because if you actually had worked on this article you would have seen this. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 20:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I've fixed the issues with images.

  Soo 01:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  To quote

  Soo 20:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • Yes, the objection will be ignored. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object Support now - Fair use has not been taken care of. All the images are marked that they need to be replaced by a smaller version, and not one of them has a listed fair use rational. Fieari 07:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now replaced them with even smaller versions and listed fair use rationale.
    Soo 11:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's now taken care of. I've now looked further at the article, and have two issues: #1) The lead section should be three paragraphs, not merely two, as according to
      WP:LEAD. #2) I'm concerned that the article has too few inline citations, particularly early on. I understand that the reference in these cases is probably the game itself, but that should still be stated. I would prefer at least one inline citation per section, and in fact, preferably at least one per paragraph. I'd be happier though, if at least a "general reference" was listed to include the game and its manual. Fieari 05:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The lead was indeed too short. I've expanded it to three paragraphs now. However I think you are being a little too perscriptive regarding citations. The article has 43 citations and anything remotely disputable is referenced. Looking at the only two other featured articles on video games that actually have a Story section (
        Soo 18:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Seems consensus emerged against me, so I've added references to the manual.
          Soo 10:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Looking good. Sorry it took me a while to get back to this review, I overlooked it somehow in my list of "wiki-chores". Fieari 20:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Abstain. Neutral + comment: I'd like to support, because the article is thorough, but I'm having a few issues with some aspects: there is no section that documents the "critical response" or "reviews" the game received. Did it fare well with critics or was it panned for various reasons that we aren't aware of? What about comments on its graphical style or texture technique? For examples, please see two CVG featured articles:
  criteria. Please correct and/or include some of my suggestions and I will comment again. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I've just now located the reviews mixed in with the sales performance of the game. Please separate these sections and provide a reviews table such as the ones present in the two articles listed above. —Eternal Equinox | talk 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have to understand that finding reviews for a game that is no longer available is considerably harder. I could easily pad out the reviews section with reviews from more obscure sources but it doesn't seem useful. Nevertheless I have added the EGM review and if you can recommend any other decent review sources then I'll happily add them. I really wish there were clearer guidelines for the plot summary; the old version was undoubtedly too long, and the new version seems to be considered too short. I'm really not sure what level of detail to aim at. When I read an article, I want the briefest possible plot summary that will allow me to understand the rest of the article, and I think the current summary serves that purpose. However I can expand it if feeling is really strong that it's too short. The writing is to the best of my ability so if it's not brilliant then I might as well give up now.
      Soo 10:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I do understand that finding reviews for a vido game no longer available is difficult, because it is the same way with albums, songs and films. I would recommend including the review from Japanese magazine Famitsu and one from either GameSpot or GamePro. —Eternal Equinox | talk 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I also suggest the review from "Edge" magazine, possibly the most widely respected games publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzzzz (talk • contribs)
          • I've extended this section significantly now. I've included the score from Edge, since this is available online, but I doubt I'll be able to get a copy of the magazine. Same applies to Famitsu.
            Soo 14:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • It's better now, however, I'm afraid that I can't change my vote to support until the writing is improved upon. —Eternal Equinox | talk 16:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • I've given the article a thorough copyedit now, and hopefully fixed most of the problems. A lot of the difficulties in writing stem from trying to cram in as much information as possible. Hopefully now I've struck a better balance. A fresh set of eyes to look over the article would nevertheless be useful.
                Soo 18:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
                ]
            • I'm still a bit distant with the writing. All of my other concerns have been addressed, and I feel as though a level of respect and process was registered here, so therefore I believe it is time for me to follow-through. See my original vote. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks :) If someone better qualified than me can go over the writing then that'd be good.
                Soo 20:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
                ]

• Object - The "Engine" section is supported by a single significant citation (and two very minor ones) -- an entire paragraph goes by without any support from sources. Additionally, the "Gameplay" section appears to be dominated by
  original research, and is in any case also virtually unsourced. -- Gnetwerker 06:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Okay, I think consensus has emerged that I'm wrong about the usefulness of citing the game's own manual explicitly. So I've added significant citations to the Engine section, and am now working on the same for Gameplay.
    Soo 13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Finished now. I've found external referencs for anything I couldn't find explicitly explained in the manual.
      Soo 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Most of the points made in the "Gameplay" and "Engine" section are pretty obvious to anyone that plays the game. I would have thought that this means that they don't need to be cited, but
    instruction manual, which hopefully should be adequate. Remarking on changes from GoldenEye to Perfect Dark is a little more awkward - again, the differences are evident to just about everyone who's played both games, but would that really fall under original research unless we cite an external review which compares the two? Finally, some of the content from the "Engine" section merely describes standard features of the gameplay; those points which don't relate to technical aspects of the game or changes since GoldenEye might need to be moved to the main "Gameplay" section. (Incidentally, that reminds me: we ought to mention the fact that PD features lifts, but I can't really think of a good place to put it.) --Nick R^Talk 13:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment. If you mention the lifts in PD, also mention the old beta footage of GoldenEye that shows the player riding a lift. It was shown in a video released before the release of the system (I think) that starred Ken Lobb. Hopefully there is an online source for the video.--Drat (Talk) 13:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • This? --Nick R^Talk 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that's the one.--Drat (Talk) 02:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The line between Engine and Gameplay is pretty fine. For example, "Like GoldenEye, Perfect Dark uses location-based damage; for example, a shot to the torso causes more damage than a shot to the limb. However, unlike GoldenEye, a headshot on a guard is instantly fatal on any difficulty level." - the first sentence is very much an engine thing, and the second sentence is really a gameplay thing. However it doesn't seem useful to split the two sentences up, because they're so intimately related, so I think we can afford to be a little flexible in terms of what goes where.
      Soo 14:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Support. I believe this article now fulfills all the requirements for becoming a FA. It is certainly comprehensive and is well written. Referencing seems sufficient to me, and images are used appropriately. It's quite impressive to see many/all of the objections here taken care of in the time this has been nominated. -- Lewis 16:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support. I must admit I have now lost track of which objections have been resolved and which haven't - it's difficult when relying on other people to retract their objections when they've been handled, but I don't want to edit others' comments.

Soo 17:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd agree with you there, and in addition, some objections can be addressed no further. —Eternal Equinox | talk 19:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's good. It's referenced (boy is it ever). I'm not sure what else to say. Nifboy 01:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Full support - referenced and interesting. The condition is that you merge the one-paragraph section "training" with some other section or expand it. One-paragraph sections are ugly. --Celestianpower ^háblame 14:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right. I've merged it into the Solo player section, where it is more at home anyway.
    Soo 15:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Thanks. --Celestianpower ^háblame 15:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good article. Is not as refined as Super Mario 64 or Majora's Mask, but is great, very detailed, and uses references well (58!). igordebraga ≠ 19:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport. Seems pretty good to me.
  Thunderbrand 20:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]