Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wolfenstein 3D/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 Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2017 [1].

Wolfenstein 3D[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 15:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Odd as it seems now in the era of ever-more realistic shooter games, churned out in yearly installments, back in 1992 there really wasn't such as thing as a "first person shooter"—not only did the name not exist, but what few first person video games with guns that existed were stealth ones, low on speed and violence; even the idea of a 3D game on computers at all was a novel one, confined to flight simulators and slow RPGs. So, when Wolfenstein 3D burst on to the scene with frenetic action and never-before-seen levels of blood and violence, it sent shockwaves through the industry, launching companies, distribution models, and genres into the mainstream. I rewrote the article on this classic game from top to bottom this July, took it through GA, and now I think it's ready to go for FAC. Thank you all for reviewing the article, and I hope it reminds you that sometimes you don't need a dramatic plot to make a game fun—sometimes you just have to shoot mecha-Hitler in the face with a chaingun while playing the "grandfather" of first person shooter games. --PresN 15:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2[edit]

The article looks in good shape although I think the date "May 5" from the section "Release" lacks a year. Also, remember to add alts to the images. Still, I'll just support it. Good luck with the article.Tintor2 (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt text; the year is missing from the sentence because "May 5, 1992" is listed 2 sentences prior. Thanks! --PresN 03:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Support Comments by Cas Liber[edit]

A nice read, a couple of minor quibbles below:

He and designer Tom Hall designed the game, built on Carmack's engine, to be fast, violent, and unlike other computer games on the market at the time. - if the speed and violence are the reason for the difference then the "and" should go...scans funny for me.
Some folks might think "sans Wilbur" a tad informal, but I don't mind...just sayin'
...led id to receive "five calls a month" from investment companies... - I'd rewrite to dequote.

Otherwise looking on target for FA-hood....

@Casliber: reworked to remove the "and", and dequoted the "five calls" quote. --PresN 20:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ok all good then Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

I spent an unwisely large chunk of my early teens playing Wolf 3D and this article does a good job of covering this landmark game. I have the following comments:

  • "FormGen developed an additional two episodes for the game, while Apogee released a pack of over 800 fan-created levels" - is the extent of fan-editing and distribution worth noting in the lead and later in the article? I remember buying floppy disks full of levels for this game!
  • The plot section is currently unreferenced.
MOS:PLOT says The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary. (I'm not involved with this article at all, just happened to see the FAC page)--IDVtalk 00:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section also seems to credit the game with a bit more plot than I remember - do sources support saying that it had a fairly limited plot? It's notable that in the "Development" section it seems like the plot was added towards the end of the game's development.
  • "that he felt kept the game from playing smooth and fast" - this wording is a bit awkward (also, the previous sentence uses "smoother and faster", so a bit more variation would be helpful)
  • The "release" section doesn't cover the game's distribution via shareware (from memory, the first episode was widely distributed this way, often on disks on the covers of magazines)
  • " While some prior computer shooter games existed, they were generally scrolling shooters, while Wolfenstein 3D helped move the market towards first-person shooters" - this could probably be rephrased to avoid repeating "while" and "shooters" in this sentence
  • The exactly dates of publishing for books aren't needed in the "sources" section: please tweak this to just the years. The location the books were published at should also be noted. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I will get to this review and the below image issue soon; between the holidays and real-life events I have limited Wikipedia time until January 10 so there may be a delay. --PresN 00:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, finally back in town. @Nick-D: responses in order:
  • I don't have a good source for Wolf3D having a larger mod/distribution community than other games, moreso than the one line in Legacy "Although Wolfenstein 3D was not designed to be editable or modified, players developed character and level editors to create original alterations to the game's content." and the fact that Apogee sold a pack of levels. Modding/selling add-ons may have been rampant for the game (especially since id and Apogee loved it and didn't try to crack down at all), but its all anecdotal. One day maybe we'll have a big sourceable article on the history of video game mods/player levels...
  • From a quick search in Google Books, Masters of Doom seems to have some material on modding of the game, and the material in the first paragraph here looks useful. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google is telling me that page isn't available to view (probably because I'm in the US, not AUS); can you email me the information you see? MoD pp. 115-116 has a little bit, but it's not much more than "people made mods; Carmack and Romero use to do that before they made games, so they thought it was cool and id left it alone." --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just emailed the relevent text to you. It basically says that while Wolf3D wasn't all that well set up for modding this happened anyway, and id quickly applied this experience as part of developing DOOM. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: alright, add a bit sourced to that book and to MoD, which I believe was your last point. --PresN 17:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plot sections don't need to be referenced, as IDV mentions- it's usually not even possible except maybe to quotes from the game
  • I'm not sure what you mean; each episode has maybe a sentence of plot listed. There wasn't more than a thin premise for the theme of that set of levels
  • Yes, that's what I was getting at. The section should note that the plot was thin. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, done. --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased
  • Made it a bit clearer that the 1st episode was released as shareware, meaning that anyone could distribute it anywhere however they'd like
  • Fixed the double "while", and one of the "shooters"
  • I'd actually argue the opposite- having the exact publishing date doesn't hurt anything and may give readers some small contextual benefit similar to the full dates given for websites, while the city that the publishing house is based in is not useful information to readers (after all, I read all of these books online or on my phone, physical location notwithstanding) and does not help with tracking down the book itself (as the isbn is included)
  • Please use standard practice for references. The exact date of publishing printed works is irrelevant given that this is based on publisher's schedules, not the date the work was actually completed (which is typically several months before the book is published). The location of publishing is needed to distinguish between different editions as it's fairly common for there to be minor differences in page numbers, and sometimes content, between editions published in, say, the US and UK. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, there's no such thing as "standard practice" for references (any consistent style is allowed), and if the date is supposed to reflect when the work was made rather than when it was available then using the publishing date/year doesn't make a lot of sense in the first place, but sure, done. --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--PresN 22:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Responded. --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: pinging again. --PresN 17:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the slow reply - I was out of town for a few days. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • The images are CC licensed or have appropriate fair use rationales. There is one major issue, though. This[2] image is a crop of another photo that has been deleted from Commons, due to "missing source".[3] Since the original uploader was called "Romero"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Romero], it is pretty likely that it is the same person as on the photo. But this needs some looking into. The cropped photo can only stay on Commons if the original is restored. So it might be an idea to contact the deleting admin. FunkMonk (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the parent photo was deleted despite being marked as the uploader's own work. Discussion here: commons:User talk:Jcb#File:Romero 3designers.jpg czar 21:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. If it is concluded that the parent image was rightly deleted, the one in this article will have to be deleted too (as well as other crops[4]). If the other way around, the parent image should be restored. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I've removed the image and replaced it with a shot of Romero (File:John Romero - Jason Scott interview (6951215353) (cropped).jpg, itself a crop of File:John Romero - Jason Scott interview (6951215353).jpg, a flickr import purporting to be from an interview and posted by the interviewer). It appears that, other than possibly being uploaded by Romero, there's no justification for the original image being free-use, so all of the crops should be deleted. --PresN 00:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this article should be fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Fuchs[edit]

 Doing... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: ? --PresN 20:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: weekly ping. --PresN 17:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the long delay. Real world got crazy. Anyhow, thoughts and stuff:

  • Prose:
    • I've gone through and made some tweaks previously. Nothing stood out on a re-read.
  • Images:
    • All images appear appropriately licensed; alt text is included in the article. File:Wolfenstein-3d.jpg's FUR was a bit general and not compelling, but I made some changes.
  • References:
    • All references used appear to be high-quality, reliable sources, formatted appropriately and consistently.
    • I did a spot-check of statements attributed to current refs 1, 4, 22, 28, 30, 50, 54, 57, and 60. I did not spot any issues with plagiarism. However, there appear to be issues with 1c compliance regarding accuracy. Problems found in the spot checks:
      • I think there needs to be some breakout of the attribution for current ref 1. It cites entire paragraphs to a multi-page review, and I've found that there's some generalization that's not in the original review (rudimentary 3D graphics, broken up into typically ten levels when the review says nine, etc.)
      • Ref 28 attributes a statement to "shareware distributors" when only one is quoted.
      • Ref 50 does not adequately source the statement attributed to it: After the game's release, id Software licensed the engine to other developers, like the Commander Keen engine before it, as part of a series of engine licensing deals that id has made throughout its history;
      • Ref 54 does not adequately source the statement attributed to it: Additionally, Softdisk produced three sequels to Catacomb 3-D in the Catacomb Adventure Series using the prototype Wolfenstein 3D engine from that game.
      • Ref 57 does not mention all the inspired Wolfenstein imitators that are listed in the Wikipedia article.

—Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        • Well, it's really just a two page review (pages 57, 58), there's just a single sentence on page 60 that I don't cite. I've adjusted the citation to be "pages=57–58", anyways. Will look into the generalizations.
          • Ok, I've pulled in a lot of other sources to handle individual sentences that Ref 1 was stretching to cover, especially an HG101 source that I didn't realize had been added to WP:VG/RS. Also adjusted the wording about the number of levels to be more precise. Rudimentary is going to have to stay, though I now have the Carmack commentary source covering it where he spends a couple minutes talking about the basic nature of the gameplay engine; I go into more detail later in the article, but I can't call it just "3D" without a qualifier because it's "3D except the height is faked and always the same and things can only be cubes on a grid all the same size except for the characters and decorations which are 2D sprites viewed from multiple angles", which is a mouthful and better suited to somewhere else besides the first sentence of gameplay.
        • Fixed.
        • Ref 50 is unnecessary; it cites only part of that phrase, but that bit's completely cited by ref 51 at the end of the sentence (the Quake section, which mentions that they licensed the Keen engine, the Wolf engine, and every engine since). Removed.
        • Corrected text to match what the source says more closely
        • Correct, Lethal Tender should be Terminal Terror (same engine, different game), and one was missing entirely and is now removed.
Addressed all but the "generalizations", will do so shortly. --PresN 21:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs: Done. --22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: How are we progressing? We are in danger of stalling I think, and there has not been much action on this FAC since early January. Unless Nick-D has much more to add, I'm afraid we might have to archive this. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just supported. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can give a review more, if anyone thinks it is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: That would be very much appreciated, if you have the time. --PresN 19:13, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll begin soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like a review from me as well, just ping me back here. Freikorp (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FunkMonk[edit]

  • Ok, I'll begin reviewing now, you should request a source review soon[5], since this can take a long wait. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pseudo-3D graphics." You only call it "pseudo" once in the article, but doe the sources actually refer to it as such? If this is an often used term for the graphics of this game, it seems absent form the development section.
  • "though only a thin plot is presented to the player between episodes" This seems like subjective statement, considering no citation is provided? It perhaps exceeds the "no sources needed in plot-sections" guideline...
  • "for Romero believed that due to the novelty of a 3D game and control scheme players would not be receptive to more complicated" Seems it could need a comma before "players".
  • There seems to be very little info on the music? I remember the intro theme being Horst Wessel Lied, which almost seems to be notable in itself...
  • Seems it could be mentioned that you can play some levels of W3D in Wolfenstein: The New Order?[6]
  • "and Beyond Castle Wolfenstein" only mentioned in intro.
  • "selling over 200,000 copies by the end of 1992." Only stated in intro.
  • "basic run-and-gun archetype" Likewise.
  • That should be it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed; that's a holdover from when I tweaked the lead and development to match each other and apparently missed Gameplay- calling it just "3D" or "pseudo-3D" is misleading.
  • Yeah, a reviewer above pushed for it. Upon further consideration, I'm taking it back out, it is subjective.
  • Done.
  • There wasn't a lot of discussion of the music, which is something I usually look for as I've written a couple dozen GAs on video game music. I've added in a line about Horst-Wessel-Lied, though.
  • Added
  • Removed
  • Should be 1993, which is what the Reception bit and the source say. Fixed. ("By the end of 1993, sales of the Apogee episodes of Wolfenstein 3D as well as Spear of Destiny had reached over 100,000 units each")
  • Huh, I don't remember writing that but I clearly did. Fixed.
  • @FunkMonk: responded below in order. --PresN 16:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Laser brain[edit]

  • Looks mostly OK, but I do have a general comment/question about publishers. I noted that your practice is to list the current publisher of each publication rather than who was the publisher at the time of publication. I feel like we should be doing the latter for a correct citation. For example EGM at this time was published by Sendai Publications so any citation to EGM prior to 1996 has an incorrect publisher listed. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laser brain: Ah, it's because I'm used to web citations, where even if it was published under a different company, it is still available today under the current publisher. You're right, that's a bad idea for print publications, and arguably for web. Changing print and web sources to their contemporary publishers. To verify, changes made: pre-1996 Electronic Gaming Monthly was Sendai Publications (changed from Ziff Davis); pre-2013 IGN was IGN Entertainment (changed from Ziff Davis where applicable); Computer Gaming World was self-published prior to August 93 (changed from Ziff Davis where applicable); Planet Quake was still part of the Planet series of Mark Surfas sites until consolidated into Gamespy in ~2001. --PresN 18:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems right. Thanks for the changes. Everything looks great! --Laser brain (talk) 19:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment: I made a few little prose tweaks, and it might be worth checking after promotion if we are overusing "game". There were a few instances where it occurred twice or more in one sentence, and while this is not enough to hold up promotion, it might be worth just going over to check for similar examples. Sarastro1 (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wolfenstein_3D/archive1&oldid=1079644161"