Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Delist. The article does not meet criteria 1(b) and 3. Geometry guy 22:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has several issues:

  • Several sources do not meet the reliable sources guidelines at WP:VG/RS. Examples are refs 3, 29, 46, 50, 65, the second and third sub-refs in ref 66, 69 and 70
    • Ref numbers may change if the text changes. In each instance please specify the text that immediately precedes the text. --Philcha (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you have not done this, I'm look at the last version of the article before the GAR. I'm also looking in reverse order, so that the numbers of the earlier refs are not changes. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref now named "MOO2BlogspotDOSBox" is the enthusiast group. The text explicitly says they are an enthusiast group:
      • It's the only way to play the games reliably on modern Windows versions. As the game is still the benchmark for 4X games, some readers will want to try it. --Philcha (talk) 12:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fair enough. The link isn't trying to cite anything that'd require an editorial staff. If there's nothing better, then just leave it be. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Readers can make their minds, and some may consider that the enthusiast group is more reliable than reviews from magazines, where the reviewers are under time pressure and possibly commercial pressures (very few reviews give so few scores below 80%). For example Tom Chick at PC Retroview: Master of Orion II makes a serious error about some races. --Philcha (talk)
  • While true, with something like a review I feel we should be more tightened down to reliable sources. If the IGN review is incorrect, simply find another. Blogs and the like would be okay for things like DOSbox, but if the game is truly the 4X benchmark the article claims then there should be sufficient reliable sources to correctly cite reviews. A compromise would be if there is an external link to a fansite that happens to have a review and lots of other useful information. In that case that could satisfy a reader's need for a "real world perspective" review, plus given them additional information, making the link fall under WP:ELMAYBE. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref now named "Moo2BlogspotMods" is by the enthusiast group and is about improving the balance of the races. Other sources have criticised the balance in the "out of the box" version, e.g. GameSpot - Features - MOO2 - Races and its sub-pages. --Philcha (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • At ref now named "MOO2ComparedWithRecentSpace4X":
      • The item original 3rd in the list, Galactic Civilizations II - Game Review (PC) Armchair General, looks find to me: Armchair General has its own management, if you look at the web site you see different reviewers so it's not a one-band. Someone complained that to many of my sources are from IGN, then you complain here when I find one that is not part of IGN. --Philcha (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I did see that they have a full editorial staff after further checking. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Master of Orion II (Mac) gave me a surprised. At first I going to discard it and the associated text in the article. Then I found that a link from the dimensionz page redirected to Atari. A far as I can see Atari's mainly interested in squeezing a few $ more out of a fully depreciated asset, but it seems to qualify as having management independent of the author. Ref now named "dimensionzMOO2Mac" --Philcha (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 60 at the last version of the review was saved at the Internet Archive but the Internet Archive now (8 Aug 2010) says it's blocked by robots.text. The magazine, Games Domain Review, had a chequered history, and was last sold in Nov 2003 to Yahoo, which dropped the the brand and web presence in March 2005. Fortunately this ref is used only for a score, and Metacritic gives the score - so I've dropped the Games Domain Review completely. --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dropped the Giovetti ref as 2 others do the job. --Philcha (talk)
    • Ref renamed "MOO2ManualPCStarMap" is the manual, in this case describing the main screen (star map). It is authoritative until someone else very reliable disputes the point. --Philcha (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref by "tacticularcancer" looks WP:SPS but more competent than almost all the "corporate" reviews I've seen - remember the time and commercial pressures of "corporate" reviews. But you seen the stack of citations on the different styles of space travel, so I've dropped "tacticularcancer". --Philcha (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed of Orion II Strategy Guide . --Philcha (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there others that concern you? --Philcha (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several references list the wrong publisher, and many have two different date formats.
    • How many "references list the wrong publisher". --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall they were GameSpot references - some referenced GameSpot, some CBS Interactive. To me it should just be one or the other. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I've gone for "|work=GameSpot| publisher=CBS Interactive Inc." as GameSpot is a "mini-publisher" in its own right. One exception has "|work=GameSpot| publisher=CNET" - looks like CBS Interactive Inc. has too levels of organisation for our citation templates. I first came on something like this in a huge survey of invertebrate paleontology. --Philcha (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re "many have two different date formats", I see nothing about that in WIAGA - do you? --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not in and of itself, however I thought given the larger issues I would list it as part of the GAR since its easy to fix. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you know a trick I don't know? The only way I can seen it is to eyeball each citation. --Philcha (talk)
  • I would agree with both of these. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rmv lead and space combat images. --Philcha (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unofficial information is listed, such as a DOSbox version listed in the infobox, and a fanpatch listed in the infobox
    • The Master of Orion II Mods - An Overview is clearly described as the work of a "group of enthusiasts". Without the note about DOSbox, the article would be just a museum item with no practical use to readers.--Philcha (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed "This economic management system came almost directly from an earlier Simtex game, Master of Magic.[15]" as that's much less important from a reader's point of view. --Philcha (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that's a persuasive argument for keeping Master of Orion II Mods - An Overview as a reference, however given that it's still unofficial I would remove DOSbox and the unofficial patch from the infobox and keep prose in the Post-Publication section. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, you're right:
  • There are grammar and spelling issues in the article, using plural forms when not needed, and the opposite
    • Restructured section "Reception". I'll see if other sections need restructuring and then look at grammar and spelling, as grammar and spelling maybe changed by a restructure. --Philcha (talk) 18:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just checked spelling.
      • I use "gamer" to refer a human player while "player" can be human or AI. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd leave "Without food, a colony will starve to death. If an empire as a whole has a food surplus ... blockading a whole system" as is, since the combinations colony in surplus and deficit vary depend on where the blockade. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed "Players can change a colony's output by moving colonists between farming, industry and research .. " to "Players can change their colonies' output by moving colonists between farming, industry and research ... but not to increase agricultural or research output" to Each player can change each of its colony's output by moving colonists between farming, industry and research,<ref name="ManualPCColonyJobs">[[#refMOO2ManualPC|MOO II Manual (PC)]], p. 57-58</ref> except that natives can only farm.<ref name="ManualPCPlanetFeatures" /> All normal colonists pay a standard tax to the imperial treasury and in emergencies one can set a higher tax rate, but this reduces industrial output.<ref>[[#refMOO2ManualPC|MOO II Manual (PC)]], p. 137</ref> A player can use surplus money to accelerate industrial production at specified colonies, but not to increase agricultural or research output.<ref name="ManualPCColonyList">[[#refMOO2ManualPC|MOO II Manual (PC)]], pp. 35-38</ref>. --Philcha (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "which otherwise is a serious constraint on industrial output in the early game". --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "miniaturization" instead of "miniaturisation" - MOO2 is a US product, the article should use US-compatible spelling. --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you please tell me if there an issues of US idiom. Then we can have some fun (!?) with internationalization. --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've re-structured section "Spaceship design" to (I think) clarify what techs are free / require refit - does that work for you? --Philcha (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In section "Combat and invasion", start 2nd para "In Master of Orion II, space combat occurs ..." as last part of 1st para is about other games. --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "the gamer chooses whether all space combat should be ..." --Philcha (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "group of enthusiasts regard race design as a crucial element of strategy" --Philcha (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • add wikilink morale. It gives a rough idea of the place of morale in MOO2, without doubling the space using on morale in the game. --Philcha (talk) 01:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In section "User interface": clarify friendly and enemy ship movements; use "gamer". --Philcha (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Section "Development": "For Master of Orion they provided..." --Philcha (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Use ref name="ChickMoo2Retroview" in a few more places. --Philcha (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Store the artwork on their hard drives" --Philcha (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • The article does not follow the Wikiproject Video games subset of WP:MOS, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are several sub-headings that can be combined, one sub-heading has only one line of text, and there are bulleted section that should be converted to prose. There may be a few lines or even subheadings that may fall under WP:GAMEGUIDE, but as I'm not familiar with 4X games, this may be necessary for the reader. Regardless so many subheadings can be trimmed to simply a few subheadings.
    • WP:WIAGA restricts the MOS subset allowed, and therefore disallows WP Project extensions. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists) does not forbid lists. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usability On The Web Isn't A Luxury by Jakob Nielsen and Donald A. Norman says, "Studies of user behavior on the Web find a low tolerance for difficult designs or slow sites. People don't want to wait. And they don't want to learn how to use a home page. There's no such thing as a training class or a manual for a Web site. People have to be able to grasp the functioning of the site immediately after scanning the home page--for a few seconds at most." --22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Kathy Henning's Writing for Readers Who Scan advises only "Include one idea per paragraph", "Subheads allow scanners to skip over chunks of copy that don't appear to have a direct relationship to their needs," "Bullet-point parallel words, phrases, or clauses". --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Web Style Guide, section Editorial Style explains why making scanning must be easy and what is the physical explanation for this, "many users find reading on-screen uncomfortable". --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While working on WP internally, e.g. in this GAR, we all use these techniques to make it easier to present our ideas. --Philcha (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't hold the short sections against the GAR. I disagree a bit in that my idea of a short paragraph is 4-7 lines, but readability is definitely not affected as you've stated. --Teancum (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • The external links listed at the bottom have multiple links that should be removed per WP:ELNO, though a few might be able to stay under WP:ELMAYBE
    • Removed all, IMO none helps the reader. --Philcha (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Recommendation - immediate delist to C-Class and place the article under Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review to help it to comply with both Wikipedia's and Wikiproject Video Games' standards. --Teancum (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - pending discussion and changes per my last comment it looks like Philca has/will either make changes necessary or be able to justify the things that remain unchanged. Not throwing in my final opinion yet, but given Philca's focus on updating the article I see no reason as of now that this won't remain GA class. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Improvement to the article (and hence the encyclopedia) is a good outcome in itself. Geometry guy 21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GA listing - article issues have been sufficiently resolved. --Teancum (talk) 11:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, with regret. I wanted to close this reassessment as keep, but am unable to do so, as the huge imbalance between the long Backstory-Gameplay-UserInterface part (primary sourced material on how to play the game) and the short Development-Reception-PostPublication part (secondary sourced material on responses to the game) suggests to me that the article fails criterion 3, and indeed possibly also WP:NOT: this is not an encyclopedia article at present, but a gameguide with reviews. Geometry guy 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The game had a GAR and passed, by Teancum on 11:51, 11 August 2010
    • The game was released 1996, so the retroviews are any there are. --Philcha (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've already provided pages from the game manual, and I found a 1996 review and a 2000 (retro)review. Would that address your concern about "primary sourced material on how to play the game"? I think it will take 1-2 days, as I also need to deal some RL. --Philcha (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Master_of_Orion_II:_Battle_at_Antares/1&oldid=380664596"