Misplaced Pages

Talk:SpellForce 3

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SoWhy (talk | contribs) at 09:47, 6 March 2018 (Assessment: +Germany: auto=y (assisted)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:47, 6 March 2018 by SoWhy (talk | contribs) (Assessment: +Germany: auto=y (assisted))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

SpellForce 3 is currently a Video games good article nominee. Nominated by SoWhy at 12:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click discuss review and edit the page.


WikiProject iconVideo games Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks
AfDs Merge discussions Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Good article nominations DYK nominations Reviews and reassessments
Articles that need...
WikiProject iconGermany Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Pre-GAN issues

Thanks for the input, I'll work on that tomorrow. Regards SoWhy 17:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
@Czar and Anarchyte: I expanded both sections now, could you take another look what's missing? Thanks for your help in advance, it's my first time trying to create a good article and I appreciate all the help I can get. Regards SoWhy 11:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Think of how a general audience would read this article, e.g., if someone was familiar with video games as you likely are with archery (likely acquainted but knowing no details). I'd want to know what the game was about in the first few sentences (of both the lede and Gameplay)—what's the point and what happens? Is it about story or exploration or teamwork or what? Then I'd look at the detail and ask whether knowing the Alt-key menu is important for understanding the topic, or if it is more trivia. Some of that insider stuff fits better on Wikia or wikis with a different scope.
  • For Reception section composition, this guide has some good suggestions. Also claims like "mostly positive" reviews need sourcing, as they're likely to be challenged. Metacritic puts its reception as "mixed"/"average". Similar tips at WP:VGG#Reception
  • Re: "stylized as" in the lede, WP:VGG#Lede
  • Development section can be tightened into longer paragraphs with points that flow into each other and less emphasis on specific dates (per general audience point). The section might have been written from news posts with emphasis on announcement/release dates, but remember the emphasis of those news stories does not match the long-view perspective of an encyclopedia.
  • I'd check some of these sources against the video game reliable sources list and custom Google search. I imagine there are better refs for some of the basic claims cited.
  • Otherwise it's clear that a lot of work has gone into this. Nice going so far

czar 20:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll take a look over it tonight and leave comments below. Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
@Anarchyte: Thanks for your help, I'll look forward to your comments. No rush though. I tried to address most of the things you mentioned @Czar but there is probably some more to do. I'm a bit struggling on how to rewrite the reception section, maybe the next days will bring some clarity. As usual, I appreciate more feedback if you find the time. Regards SoWhy 21:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Re: Reception, I'd start by stacking the refs. If reviewers predominantly shared a certain thought about the game, write "multiple reviewers thought" and add multiple refs to the end of the idea. Follow that with examples that illustrate or expand upon what the multiple reviewers pinpointed. Take the quoted passages and get to the core essence—is the point to make a quotable quip (and if so what is its relevance to us?) or to make an underlying point about what makes the game interesting in context of the larger history of games? Some conclusions about the game do not need to be attributed as opinion if they merely state fact (such as something being bugged or anything that doesn't trade in feelings). And then group the info vigorously by topic so that each sentence flows into the next. (If the link was lost above, Misplaced Pages:Copyediting reception sections is particularly helpful, with examples.) czar 01:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I haven't had as much time as I'd have liked recently, so here are some comments. I may add to this list after they're addressed.

  • role-playing / real-time strategy hybrid video game Do we need the "/" here? Wouldn't it be smoother to write "real time strategy role playing game"?
  • Is the appearance of the mage necessary in the lead?
  • Spellforce 3 is the. SP3 isn't in italics.
  • Unless I'm missing something, the first paragraph of gameplay doesn't explain what the skirmish mode is.
  • Players take control of a single character or a group of characters depending on the level in question which can be sent to different parts of the map using the mouse to click the desired place on the map. I think this can be shortened. I'm not entirely sure what it's trying to convey. Depending on the level, players assume control of either a single character or a group which can be sent to different places on the map. It's pretty self explanatory that a computer game would use the mouse, so I don't think we need to mention it.
  • I think the next few sentences about hotkeys and mouse usage could be merged. The mouse, along with hotkeys, can be used to instruct the characters in various ways, such as who to attack.
  • If you decide to disregard the idea above: used for other command, such. "command" needs an "s".
  • holding the a certain will ??
  • like more damage → such as increased damage
  • Each companion additionally → Additionally, each companion. I think this flows better.
  • three spells and/or auras at the same time, the → three spells and/or auras, the
  • little pictograms. Aren't pictograms, by nature, little?
  • on other maps he can control a whole army of units. Don't use "he".
  • If a map allows the player to control an army, they will either take over an already existing base or build a new one. Not sure what this means, and reading on doesn't give any indication.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Thanks for the suggestions, I made the changes. I moved the genre description to a separate sentence. Still considering that part though. Thanks for all the feedback so far and don't worry about not having more time. @Czar: Yeah, I read the essay, I just didn't have the required inspiration yet to approach that section. Regards SoWhy 13:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Czar: I completely rewrote the review section, trying to follow the essay you linked to. I'd be grateful if you could take another look. Regards SoWhy 16:21, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Categories: