# Talk:The Ur-Quan Masters

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Ur-Quan Masters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Will get to this soon. ♦ jaguar 14:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead
I'd split the lead into two paragraphs to improve readability
"based on the action-adventure science fiction game Star Control II" - de-link 'game'
"It has been frequently mentioned among the best games of all time" - link List of video games considered the best
"been downloaded nearly 2 million times" - two
Gameplay
While not a prerequisite, can you find an image of gameplay?
"The Ur-Quan Masters is a re-make of Star Control II" - this isn't italicised
Development
"The sequel was ported to the 3DO Interactive Multiplayer console in 1994" - console is overlinking
"By the early 2000s, the copyright in Star Control II reverted to Ford and Reiche" - copyright of or the rights to Star Control
"Ford and Reiche still owned the copyrights in Star Control I and II" - again, would read better if it was rights to Star Control
"Toys for Bob hired Chris Nelson as their first summer intern" - I didn't know what this was for a second. It would benefit from being linked
"from the 3DO version of Star Control II as open-source" - this was already linked before and it didn't have a hyphen
"The initial version was neither elegant nor fast, but Nelson had friends in the open source scene who could keep progressing with the project" - this sentence reads informally. 'Contacts' would be preferable, and who was saying that the initial version was neither elegant nor fast?
Modifications
"HD" has a disambig citation. Just de-link it
Reception
Low numbers should be written out in prose. "2 million" (two), "5 stars" (five)
Magazines should be italicised (PC PowerPlay, RetroGamer and Pelit etc)
"celebrating it as a timeless classic from the golden age of gaming" - this sounds like a quote
"The game was also featured in Maximum PC's 2015 article about the 20 best free games" - clunky. Try The game was also featured in Maximum PC's 2015 "20 best free games" feature.
References
The references are inconsistently formatted. Some have inconsistent date formats and there four references in citation 12 - why not give them separate citations?
There are also five unused harv citations
This will need a bit of work before it meets the GA criteria. There are some minor formatting issues in the prose which could easily be fixed, but some of the references need to be smoothed out and the remaining harv references should be used or removed. I'll leave this  On hold until all above is clarified. Otherwise this is a good effort. ♦ jaguar 14:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! I tried to fix most of the things that you mentioned, including numbers, reference dates, and other formatting issues. A few outstanding issues:
I don't understand what you mean by unused citations. I count 36 citations and they are all used to support facts in the prose.
For reference 12, I have been advised in the past to use reference WP:BUNDLING, to improve organization and readability. I think this is a place where bundling makes sense, as it takes multiple references to establish the facts in the prose, but you don't really want to separate it out into that many footnotes.
There are tons of pics that are licensed to the public for non-commercial use. For some reason I've always had trouble with the uploading interface from my browser. There's some great images of the semi-notable HD mod too.
Let me know about those last few things. Would also appreciate some help with the image part (and will ping the VG wikiproject). Shooterwalker (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
No worries Shooterwalker. There are several "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" warnings in the references which means there are citation templates not pointing to anything in the article. This isn't your fault as you've used bundling which combines multiple citations into one footnote. Don't worry about the gameplay image, while it isn't a requirement for GA it would be nice to have one. With all the other minor issues out of the way this meets the GA criteria, so I'll be happy to promote this. Good work!  ♦ jaguar 16:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
That's great and hopefully someone else can help with the image. Merry Christmas and thanks for the review! Shooterwalker (talk) 17:52, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

What needs to be improved for this article to become an FA? Senn-00 (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Anyone know who the alien in the bottom right of the HD image (File:Ur-Quan Masters HD.jpg) is? Senn-00 (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
I assume that robot-looking alien in the bottom right is not an alien in the game. I blacked it out manually using GIMP to avoid misinformation. There are four aliens (double check this) with battle displays that the image doesn't have: Chmmr, Slylandro, Syreen and VUX. The image is alphabetically ordered, so the editor who inserts another alien into the picture would have to move around the individual displays. I don't have the image-editing skills to do it. Senn-00 (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Shooterwalker, your edit reversed my recent edits on the article. I would asusme that you copy-pasted your edit into another text editor while you were making your changes. I believe it is easier to revert your edits first, then make your improvements from there while preserving mine. Senn-00 (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the last edits I was intending to make were to include a citation for the HD release date (it's 2013; the SourceForge page only shows December 31, 2012, to count all of 2013) and to replace the HD image with only 19 races.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senn-00 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the new image. I may have accidentally messed up your modified image for the races, because I don't see it anymore. I tried to rescue some of the aspects that were certified in the good article peer review, while preserving your edits, such such as the title screen, the credits, and several changes in wording. (For what it's worth, I think the 20th "race" is if you use cyborg mode, but I might be mistaken. It's not crucial to have it, and showing a few races is illustration enough.) Shooterwalker (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The good article review does not force you to keep using a certain style or wording. Every article's prose and order of details could be improved. About the image, I tested the game and found that the cyborg doesn't have an accompanying battle image. It either uses the native ship's image, or for the flagship doesn't show one. I am playing version 0.6.2. Senn-00 (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
You're also right about the release date. I was trying to address the "citation needed" template, and turns out the article was right the first time, that it was released at the top of 2013. It's important to be careful when modifying a good article, because even adding facts (e.g.: the original game was subtitled "The Ur-Quan Masters") can accidentally introduce information that isn't actually mentioned in the sources, which could eventually lead to the article being demoted. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The GA review is only one editor's feedback. Mistakes can slip through. The reviewer is not pointing out everything that can be improved. It does not seem that the reviewer must have an expert knowledge of English style, either. I made stylistic changes that improve the prose quality and the order of facts, and I am not risking the demotion of this article. Thus I am restoring the page to the version before you edited today and making a few follow-up edits. Senn-00 (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
The state of the article at GA represents the consensus of editors to that point, which is more than a few editors. I thought your edits were overall constructive, but I pointed out specific ways that the changes you made introduced errors, such as including statements (though true) that cannot be verified in the sources. I'd ask that you try to engage in a collaborative way through the talk page and through incremental edits. That's what I tried to do, preserving your more constructive edits that helped the prose and accuracy. Are there specific issues with the article's state, after your edits and my further edits, that you think need to be addressed? Shooterwalker (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I was working on the page while you reverted it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Senn-00/sandbox for my preferred version. You can see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASenn-00%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=1049616523&oldid=1049616434 for the exact differences between that and the real page. As I remember, I introduced one fact into the article that needs citing: the credits part. I did nothing to add the subtitle; I moved it from the lead to the body. The statement about the subtitle is currently in the article's lead, but it is too much detail for the lead. I believe my stylistic changes to be objective improvements and will justify them if asked. Senn-00 (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm asking you to try a more collaborative tone, rather than going back and forth about which version is more objectively good. Though you present as a new user from the age of your account, it's clear you understand enough about Wikipedia to make potentially good contributions here, if you understand collaborative principles such as WP:CONSENSUS. I tried to build on your edits and preserve the parts that were constructive, and it's possible for us to move forward together, one edit at a time. A good strategy might be to flag the top 2 or 3 issues you have with the current version, and then we can come to a WP:CONSENSUS about the best way to address them. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Understood. (I am not a new user.) My content concerns: 

"notable" in reference to the HD version appears to be original research. The lead states that fan "modifications" have received praise, but only one is discussed in the body.
The sentence "The game includes exploration, resource-gathering, combat, and diplomacy" is redundant to the rest of the paragraph and should be moved to the lead.
I am making a replacement image for the HD version. Senn-00 (talk) 21:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with me, and we can figure this out. I think one of the misunderstandings is that we never "move" things to the lead: the lead is meant to summarize the article's contents. (Which might also explain why you think it's redundant, and you'd even be correct, as that is by design.) WP:LEAD does, in fact say, "the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body". This style of presentation is meant to help readers: saying it once to provide a quick overview, and then retreading the same information with more detail.
The other comment about the HD remake seems workable. There are other mods such as the Megamod that haven't been covered by journalists, which means that the HD remake is the only modification to be covered by reliable sources. There might be a better phrasing than "The most notable fan modification", but it reflects that it's essentially the only mod to get picked up by journalists. (The lead, once again, is meant to summarize this.)
Thanks again about the images. I've always had a hard time with Wikipedia's image tools, so this is an obvious area for potential improvement.  Shooterwalker (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
You misunderstand my point. The sentence was redundant to its body paragraph, but is perfect as a minimal summary of gameplay for the lead. I moved it to the lead with a brief about the plot: "In the story, the player undertakes space exploration, resource-gathering, diplomacy, and combat to free humanity from its conquerors, the Ur-Quan." Senn-00 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Just observing the latest changes. I support most of them, especially the updates to the images, and cleaning up some of the references. Thanks again for taking a collaborative approach instead of reverting. I think your phrasing in the lead about the fan modification is more accurate now. I only see a couple small issues:
In general, it's the Video Game WikiProject's best practice for Good and Featured Articles to provide context about who created an influential game, and/or when it was created and/or for what console. Hence the MIT reference around SpaceWar! – it was created for the MIT's internal computing system at the time.
Changing "inefficient" to "did not meet standards" makes things more ambiguous, not less. The source refers to the initial open-source port running very slow, before the fan-team was able to make it more efficient. So hopefully we can find a phrasing that more accurately reflects the sources, with less ambiguity.
I appreciate you taking time to discuss the lead and the brief overview of gameplay, before making the edit. Most Featured Articles about games still try to provide one or two summary sentences in the first part of the gameplay section (e.g.: "Title X is a game in this style and genre. It features game mechanics one, two, and three".) I don't mind expanding on this overview in the lead as well, but the lead is meant to follow the body.
These are fairly small things, and I'm confident we can find ways to meet Wikipedia standards, and still satisfy what feels correct to both of us. By the way, do you think there is a better image for the gameplay section, or do you think the current image is fine? Shooterwalker (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Which guidelines do you reference by "provide context about who created an influential game" and "provide one or two summary sentences in the first part of the gameplay section"? Also, I have substituted the statement about their "standards" for a verbatim quote. Senn-00 (talk) 02:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the part about the first release. I personally think a verbatim quote is clunky and would prefer a summary, but it's at least more specific than what was there before. As for the gameplay section, you can check the VG manual of style, let alone the video game articles that typically get promoted to Featured Articles. A good gameplay section always starts by introducing the player's main actions and goals, and then goes into more detail about each of those after an introduction. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

It appears that we are mistaken to say that the game has been downloaded 1.9 million times. The SourceForge link https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-01-01%20to%202021-12-01&period=monthly counts "All Files", which includes non-game files such as the remix packs. In addition, the statement may erroneously count up to four file downloads as one game download because the executable, content file, music and speech audio are together distributed as four separate files. Senn-00 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

You have a valid point, though it's hard to know how to deal with this without engaging in original research from primary sources, which is against Wikipedia policy. We may have to use approximate numbers, and I think reporting with any number of decimal places is probably too bold. I can only see three solutions that would work with Wikipedia policy:
Ideally, a third party source has covered this, so that we don't have to engage in any editorial research.
In the absence of a third party source, we pick our words carefully, to summarize the primary source without being too specific or analytical.
In the absence of any accurate information at all, we remove any statistics at all.
Those are literally the only options compatible with Wikipedia. While I have my preferences, Wikipedia policy says #1 trumps everything else and we should proceed on that basis, if we can. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)