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 Graham Colm 109:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Flotilla (video game)[edit]

Flotilla (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox


Nominator(s): → Call me Hahc21 02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flotilla is a turn-based strategy space combat video game developed by Brendon Chung's video game studio, Blendo Games. It was released in 26 February 2010 for Microsoft Windows, and in 30 March 2010 on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360. The game employs Microsoft's XNA game platform, and its development was influenced by cats and board games, such as Axis and Allies and Arkham Horror. The game follows the player in an 30-minute adventure through a randomly generated galaxy. → Call me Hahc21 02:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Comments from Tezero[edit]

The article looks great otherwise. Tezero (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! → Call me Hahc21 18:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hahc21: To be clear, I'll support the candidacy if you can provide an answer about the sources. I notice you've edited a bit since I made these comments, so I just wanted to remind you. Tezero (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tezero: I already removed GameFAQs. I have yet to make my mind about GamingDaily. @Sven Manguard: what do you think about Gaming Daily? is it reliable? → Call me Hahc21 03:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked GamingDaily's about page from the time that the article was written. They had a general editor, a deputy editor, and three writers. I am unimpressed with what I could find on the credentials of the general editor (link to his blog) and even less impressed with the (apparent lack of) credentials of the person that wrote the review (link to his blog). The review itself is passable, but not great.
The issue with removing GamingDaily is that everywhere GamingDaily is used as a source, Gamers with Jobs is also used as a source. Like the GamingDaily review, I found the Gamers with Jobs review passable but not great. However, I found no indication that the person writing the review was a staff writer, and more problematically, found no indication that Gamers with Jobs has editorial policies/oversight.
I'd say remove them both, but that would leave a majority of the Gameplay section unsourced. I would say remove Gamers with Jobs, but that would leave the section heavily dependent on the review from GamingDaily. Ultimately, I am going to decline to give a recommendation. These are not sources that I would use if I were writing an article, but I write articles on XBLA games, where better sources are readily available. You would be better served asking for advice from someone that works in indie game articles, and has a better feel for what level of quality and formal editorial control is acceptable in that area. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, I think you'd want PresN (talk · contribs). Tezero (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tezero:: Addressed all, I think (source replacement on the way). More comments? :) → Call me Hahc21 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nah. Support: I trust that you'll find acceptable sources and, well, if you don't, someone else will oppose on source quality. My other concerns are all addressed. Tezero (talk) 01:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still need to do a full review, but here's a short source review, unindented:

Source review by PresN

--PresN 19:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media review by Sven Manguard

This article has three images. Two images are freely licensed, and one is non-free.

File:Flotilla Coverart.png is a non-free image. It meets the NFCC and has an appropriate FUR
File:Flotilla - combat (Blendo Games).jpg is freely licensed. It is sourced to a Flickr account, and there is no evidence of Flickrwashing. There is no evidence that the account that released the images is Blendo's official Flickr (and no link to it in the media section of the official website), but no evidence to the contrary either.
File:Brendon Chung at GDC 2012.jpg is freely licensed. It is sourced to a Flickr account, and there is no evidence of Flickrwashing.

I have written to the studio to confirm that the Flirkr account is legitimate, and also to ask for the first image to be released under a free license. As it stands, this article passes media review regardless. This is not a support vote for the article; I don't do those. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sven Manguard: All these images were given by Brendong Chung after Masem contacted him during the FAC candidacy of Gravity Bone. Maybe Masem can help confirm that. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 23:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the account is legit. I knew Brendan via the Shacknews website and helped guide him how to up these to flickr and license them for our use. If needed, I can submit to ORTS the message chain for that. --MASEM (t) 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Masem: Thanks! Though I admit I'm jealous. → Call me Hahc21 00:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The email is already sent. I was unaware of the Masem connection. An OTRS record verifying that the Flickr account is official would be a good thing to have, if it's not too much trouble. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hahc21 and Masem: - My contact with Blendo Games has been a success. We now have freely licensed cover art for six of his games (including this one), and there is an OTRS ticket on file confirming the authenticity of the Flickr account. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Review from czar[edit]

In the interest of transparency: both the nom and I participate in the WikiCup czar ♔ 15:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please respond below the review and I'll hat my bullets after your reply. Some questions are rhetorical and I'm not expecting answers here but clarification in the article.

Good work. Give me a ping when these are addressed and I'll respond and do a source review. I'm also looking for feedback on the Menacer FAC, for those interested. czar ♔ 18:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Czar:: Addressed some. → Call me Hahc21 01:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Czar: I reworked the Reception section. However, since this is a not-so-famous indie game, there not much that can be done to expand it more. Do you have any more comments? I'd like to know if I have addressed them all. Cheers. → Call me Hahc21 19:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unaddressed: there is no gameplay summary in lede, more can be done to show why the game is notable in lede, comment about multiplayer mode criticism. I still think more of the direct quotations can be struck and paraphrased.
  • I don't know where PresN said the release date doesn't need to be mentioned in the article, and I wouldn't say it's a rule, but this would mean that there is no coverage of the game's actual release in the article (other than professional reviews, not the release itself). In a FA? Why? There is also nothing on porting the game, or the non-simultaneous release? (Also the infobox dates appear to be out of order.)
  • @Czar: Because this is an indie game. Indie games like this usually receive coverage in the form of reviews and interviews. Only major, non-indie games receive coverage about release dates because publishers are very buzzy about that. This isn't like that. When an indie game is finished, it's released and that's it. Then, reviewers become aware amd write reviews. → Call me Hahc21 19:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Minor concern, but I don't know why Space Piñata is mentioned in the lede. It's fine with just the description
  • (Another minor concern: I don't know what's up with the "no include" tags on this review page. The FAC page specifically asked not to use semicolons.)
  • The noinclude thing is to avoid the headers to appear on the main FAC page. I'm fine if the semicolons are replaced with boldings.
  • I don't understand why dmy became mdy. I see a strong nat ties argument in the edit summaries, but I think WP:RETAIN takes precedent over the extremely unimportant (not mentioned in the article once) fact that Blendo is based in the US.
  • Clarifications can still be made to the Gameplay—what is randomly generated (at least link it?) Is there one "the player" or multiple "players" in the Gameplay explanation. I still don't really know how the Gameplay works. Is there a 30-second time limit to enter commands that are then executed in unison? Is the window for movement only open every 30 seconds (briefly) and the movement happens simultaneously? We need much more info about how the controls and core mechanics work.
  • The prose has become chunkier in the flurry of edits since I last touched the article. Could use a copyedit. Some examples: mixed punctuation inside/outside quotation marks (mentioned in original copyedit notes above), "Before Flotilla, Chung worked on a prototype, a two-dimensional turn-based space action game called Space Piñata, whose gameplay and structure were similar to those of the final version of Flotilla." → "similar in gameplay and structure to the final Flotilla release" and I'd also turn the comma parenthetical to an em dash parenthetical for readability, "Flotilla has a cooperative mode that can be played with an additional Xbox 360 controller, as well as a split-screen multiplayer mode." → "has cooperative and split-screen multiplayer modes that can", etc. I wouldn't say the prose is at 1a professional brilliance yet. I already gave it a look earlier (I wanted to just come back to support) but I'm out of time, so it's someone else's turn to copyedit.
  • I have to oppose on these quality concern grounds, though I think they're surmountable. I don't want the opp to put the nom in danger, so please ping me to do the copyedit on a weekend if you absolutely can't get anyone else to do it. czar ♔ 14:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It doesn't look to me like much in the way of copyediting has occurred since this comment, so has Czar been invited to revisit? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I asked @Miniapolis:, but I guess she's busy. I'd appreciate if somebody copyedits it :) → Call me Hahc21 20:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drive-by review from Chris857
@Chris857: Tweaked. Cheers! → Call me Hahc21 20:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Review from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

Some stuff I noticed, written as I read through the article from top to bottom.

  • Is it necessary to include all of its exact release dates in the lead? The infobox has those handled. Perhaps change it to the slicker, easier-to-read, "It was released in March 2010 on Steam for Microsoft Windows and on Xbox Live Indie Games for the Xbox 360."
  • Done.
  • Coming into this article as someone who has never even heard of this game, the line in the lead about its development being "influenced by cats" is incoherent to me. What about cats was used as an influence? Their fur? Their sleeping habits? Going to need some clarification.
  • This is not clear in the source either. However, I have emailed Brendon to know if he can expand a bit on this.
  • While it would be interesting to find out what he meant, we'll need a reliable, verifiable reference if that information is to be used in an article. An email does not qualify as a reliable, verifiable reference. I think it would be best to remove the cats mention, because it's too confusing and meaningless as it stands.
  • Actually, I disagree. We can treat his email as a primary source (it is a detail about how the game was developed, so all info about it comes from a primary source, even if published by a third-p source) and add the information to the article. Since the cats thing was used for DYK, I don't think it would be a good idea to remove it from the article.
  • Also, some redundancy in the first paragraph: the last two sentences begin with "The game", and the second-to-last sentence uses both "development" and "developed". Maybe change "development" to "design".
  • Done.
  • The second paragraph states that Chung developed Flotilla immediately after Pandemic shut down. The use of the word "developed" makes it sound like the game was made in a day. Perhaps "Chung began developing Flotilla" would be better.
  • Done.
  • What was Space Pinata a prototype of, and who made it? It's not clear.
  • It was just a game prototype, developed by Chung. Clarified.
  • Also, as a general rule, formulations such as ", and used" or ", and was included" should be ", and it used" or ", and it was included"—when discussing an object, that is.
  • Will have in mind, thanks!
  • What is a non-playable opponent? Is this is same thing as an artificially intelligent opponent? If that's the case, then I recommend the latter wording, as it's clearer.
  • Changed to The game lets the player and opponents (controlled by the game's artificial intelligence) issue orders...
  • There are a lot of unnecessary words here: "usually given no more than a few ships to control". Try, "usually controls less than X ships", where X is replaced by the relevant number. To remain grammatically correct after this change, the second half of the sentence will have to begin ", which may be".
  • The problem is that your suggestion is not accurate. The player is given no more than a few ships to control at the beginning of the game, but they can eventually control more ships later. However, I did not specify this either. I tweaked the sentence now. Take a look.
  • Thanks for the clarification. I tweak the wording of the new version a bit, but, aside from that, it looks good.
  • "fixed duration" can be changed to "duration".
  • Done.
  • Instead of "a new randomly generated galaxy is created and filled with planets and enemy ships", try "a new galaxy is randomly generated and filled with planets and enemy ships".
  • Done.
  • I don't understand the sentence regarding tutorials. Does the player have to play a tutorial each time he or she begins an adventure? Also, what does the tutorial teach?
  • Tweaked. It teaches the basic gameplay stuff.
  • If "all planets offer a possible quest", then there is a single quest offered by all planets collectively. Try, "Each planet offers a possible quest".
  • Fixed.
  • You write that Flotilla's single-player mode is a "single adventure" that must be replayed; yet, lower down, you write that "a new chapter is added to the player's character's story" upon victory. I don't understand how these two things fit together.
  • Victory there refers to each challenge within a single playthrough. These are then reset when a new adventure is started. However, the game keeps track of the player's score in each playthrough at the scoreboard.
  • I see it now. I'll take the blame for this misunderstanding.
  • You need to merge the challenge-related information at the end of the second paragraph with that at the beginning of the third. As it stands, you explain what a challenge is after you've told us everything else about it. I recommend that you introduce a line break after "being able to freely explore the galaxy", and that you begin the third paragraph like so:
  • Each planet offers a possible quest or challenge to the player. Challenges are tactical battles in which the player must defeat a certain number of enemy ships. However, ships can only be harmed from behind or below; attacks from any other position will be countered by the ships' shields. Upon succeeding, a new chapter is added to the player's character's story, and the player is awarded with ship upgrades.
  • Tweaked.
  • I don't understand this: "the player may not receive the same upgrade by playing the same encounter in two different adventures." Again, you wrote that the single-player mode is a "single adventure". I'm not sure how a single adventure can be "two different adventures", or how the same encounter can play out twice in a randomly generated galaxy.
  • I think that my removing of the word "single" solved this point. it is not a "single adventure," and I still don't know what I meant by it. Anyways, it's gone :)
  • How can Chung develop a game "under his video game studio"? Was he developing it in his basement? I'm not sure what this means.
  • Woah forgot to tweak wording on Dev. Done.
  • "Chung started coding Flotilla in 2009 after 200 staff were laid off by Electronic Arts as Pandemic Studios was closed." -- "He started coding Flotilla in 2009, after Electronic Arts closed Pandemic Studios and laid off 200 members of that company's staff."
  • Went with Crisco's suggestion. I don't see why mentioning that 200 staff was laid is important for this game.
  • "a set of tools focused on video game development created by Microsoft." -- "a set of game development tools created by Microsoft."
  • Done.
  • Even in the Development section, the line about cats makes no sense. Definitely need to rework that with more explanation.
  • Let's see what Chung says about it!
  • Was Space Pinata the game that he began developing after Pandemic closed, or was he developing it as a side project while working at Pandemic? As it stands, it's unclear.
  • We don't know when he developed Space Piñata. We only know that it happened before Flotilla.
  • "acknowledged that the games was" should be "acknowledged that the game was".
  • Good catch.
  • "elaborated that althought" should be "elaborated that although".
  • Good catch x2
  • "but concluded that it was however a "sadly disposable" experience" -- the "however" is unnecessary.
  • Already done (by Crisco I suppose)
  • "Joe Martin from Bit-Tech named Flotilla a " hilarious and brazenly original" game." -- Flotilla is not italicized here, and there's a space separating the quotation mark from "hilarious".
  • Oops!
  • "though concluded" -- "though he concluded"
  • Done.
Thanks for the comments! → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical notes

  • Do you have issue numbers for the Edge, PC Zone, PC Gamer US and PC Gamer UK reviews? Also, I'm fairly certain that the titles of those articles were not all "Flotilla review"--and that three out of four of those magazines list reviewer names.
  • Let me use my magical-and-resourceful skill to find these. I was not able to do it at first but I admit I was lazy.
  • JimmyBlackwing: Got the PC Gamer US one. However, the UK one, as well as the PC Zone and Edge ones are really though. Edge is issue 214, but I have been unable to get the name of the reviewer. I asked Future Publishing about it (Edge and UK). PC Zone, I think it is issue number 222. The last issue (225) was released in September, so the May one should be 222. I originally took these reviews from Metacritic, though.
  • Edge reviews have always been anonymous. I added the PCGUK issue number--and I think you should add the PC Zone number you found. I'll let the rest slide, I suppose.
  • Flotilla should be italicized in each reference.
  • Done.
  • If you provide an archive for a URL that is still online, remember to include "deadurl=no" in the citation template. The SquareGo and Kotaku links are still live, and others might be as well.
  • I think this was pointed out to me, can't remember when. I'll do it soon.
  • The cover needs alt text.
  • The alt text parameter has been deprecated from the ((Infobox video game)) template. I can't add it :(
  • I wasn't aware of this. Oh well.

Aside from that, it looks fairly solid. I don't know enough about the game to judge the article's completeness, but I've helped with enough indie game articles to know that the average number of available sources is low. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. → Call me Hahc21 04:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks pretty good. I ran through the article with a little follow-up copyediting, and the prose seems solid enough now. Once you get the last of the technical stuff sorted out, I'll be willing to support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deadurl business still needs to be taken care of. Also, I made a comment about the cats line above that I think you might have missed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Took care of the deadurl thing. The one about cats, I commented above. → Call me Hahc21 21:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support, then. Good work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Crisco comments[edit]

Comments by DWB[edit]


Update (Crisco 1492, JimmyBlackwing, Czar): Brendon answered my email explaining the cats thing, and thank god he did. It is now way more clear what he meant by it. So I assume that the cats point is now solved. I did my best to add a proper citation, since this is the first time I do something like that. Oh, he also said that there's not developer commentary for Flotilla. Now, about that copyedit... Miniapolis, would you pelase give me a hand? :) → Call me Hahc21 19:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments -- Since Czar hasn't returned to copyedit, and no-one else seems to have taken on the task, I'm recusing myself as delegate/coordinator to go through it myself. Not being much of a video gamer in general, and never having heard of this one, I can only trust that my efforts to make the prose a little clearer haven't altered the intended meaning. One outstanding point from the lead: "its development was influenced by animals" really cries out for some clarification at this point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Comments from Nortonius[edit]

I note comments above about awkward text: I wonder if some of the following might help.

Lead

Gameplay

These suggestions are meant to be helpful, not harsh: I'll have another look and include the rest of the article when you've responded to them, if you like. Nortonius (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from V[edit]

Certainly significant room for improvements.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake[edit]

Actually, I can't see anything wrong with the article. So I will give this article a Support. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More