Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/3D Monster Maze/archive1

3D Monster Maze edit

Self-nomination. Submitting as 1) it seems to me to satisfy the f.a.c. criteria 2) (Quoting the article): it has a remarkable place in the history of computer/video games, being the first 3D game for a home computer 3) all the objections/ideas from the peer review/talk page have been merged in, the reference research seems logically complete now BACbKA 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the relevant links into a references section, by using the relevant citing templates. An annotation putting each one into the article material context is present (also inherited from when it was in the external links section). Please tell me if more should be done on the references front (these are the actual references used, sorry for blurring the references/ext. links distinction previously). BACbKA 23:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the background history on the game development and the guy behind it, along with the backing references. BACbKA 01:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ Object. The article is much too short for such an 'important' game. I'd like to see more shots, to read more about the evolution of 3D-gaming (or first-person shooters), more about the programmer(s), some early reactions to the game (reviews?), something about the reason why this game is not well-known, etcetera. Also, it needs references (is the game featured in any of the histories of computer games? I think it is). -- Cugel 21:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the last section of the article (the one called "External links")? All the references are there. Some are talking about histories of computer games. 2 of them have stories about the programmers, the firm etc. I thought it is out of the focus of the game proper. I thought the relative proportion of the material to the references is pretty good. I'd be happy to elaborate more on the issues you've raised (by incorporating a digest of these issues from the references already in), but please confirm you didn't miss the pointers that have exactly the answers you ask for one click away. BACbKA 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it now by re-reading the FA criteria again. You want a section named References, and you want pointers to it from within the main text. I'll do that, by re-hashing the External links. BACbKA 23:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I put more history points pertaining to the game in; more available from the relevant gaming history in the See also. More about the programmer added, reviews put in, too. As to "why this game is not well-known", I must say, that the very question showed that the article wasn't clear enough --- it is quite known, esp. in the retrogaming scene. The newly added info and links hopefully clarify that. Reviews clippings added as well. Hopefully I have addressed all of your issues; please tell me if you still feel it is "much too short" and what further expansion direction you'd like to see. (See also the article talk page — there are a couple of minor trivia points I'm currently going to research and add). BACbKA 22:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing 'strong', but still objecting. You're doing a fine job improving the article. It's not yet ready for FA status, maybe you should take a good look at the articles about computer games that did get FA. They're much longer and more elaborate about all aspects of the game (I agree with you that it may not make sense, but an article really has to shine before it gets featured). -- Cugel 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object. Please look over the FA criteria again. The lead is much too short, the article is generally too short, and it is missing references. There is nothing about the Gameplay, or the response the game received from the press and reviews. A game cover would be good in the infobox. You can add it to peer review again for more specific comments/suggestions. — Wackymacs 22:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the references and reviews, please see my answer above. I can surely add a press/reviews section in the article, in addition to the references; I'll start right away. Can you please tell me how long (number of paragraphs) you'd think the press/reviews section should be, to your taste? How much to expand the lead? And what do you mean by the "Gameplay" in addition to the "Game overview" stuff there already? I'd be happy to add that, as soon as I am sure I understand what is missing. (Pity I never got these comments during the peer review...) BACbKA 22:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It looks better now but I keep my Object vote because the article is too short to become featured, its not an example of Wikipedia's best work. — Wackymacs 10:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object Looks very short. Is that all we know about 3D Monster Maze? deeptrivia (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Object, way too short to be a featured article, and missing lots of important information - who developed the game, how did the 3D engine work, were any shortcuts made in coding the engine (I'm sure there were, considering the technology it was coded on), how was the game received by the press and by gamers, how were the sales, which other games did it influence, ...? I'd love to learn more about the game, but the article doesn't give any of that information. This article certainly has the potential to become a featured article one day, but still has a long way to go -- Ferkelparade π 00:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 3D engine exploration is not available AFAIK anywhere, and I am not going to put in any original research. Looking for the sales figures, but in vain so far. Other issues raised by this entry addressed by the recent changes to the article. BACbKA 11:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some more detail, although I realize finding info on an obscure old game like this could be difficult. It has the basic ingredients for a FA, in my opinion, just needs some expansion and maybe a little fine-tuning. I do think it's interesting. Everyking 08:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I recommend bringing the "reviews" section together a bit more, providing summary "linking" info to guide the reader along, and some general notes (overall critical reception, common themes/perceptions of reviewers, evaluation over time)...flat quoting of the reviews is a bit weak. Everyking 08:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've done the "reviews" part. I'm at a loss about further detail digging w/o turning this into original research (although I am able to disassemble the game and comment on how it works from within, I don't think this is what you're looking for when you're asking for more details). Concrete suggestions (like the reviews thing) are desperately needed (and, of course, it would be great if you tried the game out and/or contributed to the article yourself to steer it towards the goals you suggest...) BACbKA 21:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]