Talk:StarCraft: Ghost

	StarCraft: Ghost has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 26, 2008 Good article nominee Listed

StarCraft: Ghost is part of the "StarCraft" series, a current good topic candidate. A good topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to [[Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/StarCraft/archive{{{2}}}|leave comments]].

Video games GA‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. 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 articles GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the project's quality scale. Low This 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 view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs Project Sora (3 participants) Sora Ltd. (3 participants) Endor AG (2 participants) DcVD (4 participants) Kleavor (6 participants) Aston Martin DP-100 (4 participants) Cue Club 2 (2 participants) GeneRally (2 participants) How (video game) (3 participants) Anti-Cheat Expert (6 participants) Planet Half-Life (3 participants; relisted) Flash Element TD (2 participants; relisted) Butterfree (10 participants; relisted) Ryo Sakazaki (7 participants; relisted) Merge discussions Project Sora (discussion) Sora Ltd. (discussion) Neo Geo Pocket (discussion) Screen Rant (discussion) Minecraft – Volume Beta (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Ada Wong (nom) The Sims 4 (nom) Smash Hit (nom) Five Nights at Freddy's: Help Wanted (nom) Good article nominations Donkey Kong (nom) Puff-puff (onomatopoeia) (start) Tina Armstrong (start) Birdo (nom) Shin Megami Tensei V (nom) Justin Yu (nom) Kim Kitsuragi (start) Miner 2049er (start) Pixel Piracy (start) Ether One (start) Yoshi's New Island (nom) Dr Disrespect (start) Pokémon Sword and Shield Expansion Pass (start) Async Corp. (start) Hotline Miami (start) Pokémon fan games (start) The Outer Worlds (start) River Raid (start) The Great Giana Sisters (start) Pikachu (start) Visions of Mana (start) Mario Party: Island Tour (start) Meltan (start) Bejeweled (video game) (start) Kleavor (start) Haunter (Pokémon) (start) DYK nominations Delibird Reviews and reassessments The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (nom) Pokémon Channel (nom) Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (nom) A Space for the Unbound (rev) Tetris (NES video game) (rev) Articles that need... assessment (2) (4) reassessment (0) cleanup (8) infoboxes (18) cover art (252) screenshots (8,824) photos (66) translation from japan (189) creation merging

Template:Maintained

The article acts like as if the game has been released or is about to be relased. This could be confusing to readers. I think it should instead say "Blizzard planned to do this" or "Ghost's gameplay would have differed in x" instead of "Ghost's gameplay is different." At least it seems this way. I can defend the tone of DNF in the fact that 3DR has yet to slam the door on the project, whereas Blizzard seems to have done just that. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, point taken, although it still can't be said that the door's been slammed tight, they still don't cancel it officially. -- Sabre (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me, you've done a great job cleaning it up. Too bad that Ghost can't beat DNF in terms have placing #1 for three years in a row. Or, in antoher sense, Blizzard was merciful and termianted the project in a timely manner, in three years opposed to eleven years (coming up this April 27!). hbdragon88 (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just uploaded a full rewrite for the article. The crufty unit lists have been entirely thrown out, replaced with sections covering gameplay. The development section's been redone, and referenced as best I can for the moment, although a couple of bits still need sourcing - I've highlighted them with {{fact}} tags. A lot of the dates in the previous version contradicted the sources I was reading when making this (ie, Nihilistic quit in 2004, not 2002), I hope I've managed to get the dates accurate. The images have also been redone so they display things that are of potential use to readers, as opposed to before. The overall tense (except the story bits) is in the past for the moment, obviously should Ghost ever become viable again this would need to be updated to the present and future tenses accordingly as soon as possible. -- Sabre (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to verify that the WoW expansion contained a trailer to Ghost, or that Slashdot reported that 80% of the game engine was complete when Nihilistic left the project. Therefore, they've been removed. -- Sabre (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things I picked up while reading through this

• Lead - "However, the game's development " - maybe break up into two sentences
• Multiplayer - the tense of this section seems to switch around. It also feels jargon-heavy. Although the jargon is wikilinked, it might be an idea to break it down a little.
  • I can't seem to do much about the jargon, its explained as best I can, and I can't cut it down by much. -- Sabre (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Development - I'd be interested to hear more of the initial media reaction to the concept, such as the hype that built up around the announcement and the special website that they did. You have the media response to the project being put on indefinite hold, so it'd be good to be able to chart the media attitude through development.
  • I've added a couple of points, covering the initial reaction to the game, and later anticipation for the game from the media. -- Sabre (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Refs - for some reason, Ref #29 doesn't link through properly. Additionally, it links thorugh to a fansite. I know it's taken from a Bliizcon, but is the same information available from another source that could be argued as more reliable?

Other than that, a great article. Regrading to B class. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 18:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally make a case that SC Legacy is, at least in this regard, a reliable source. WP:Verifiability defines a reliable source as a third-party source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Now, if we were dealing with it being used to reference key gameplay elements, or review things, it would fall under WP:SPS. However, its newsposts are always sourced and verifiable themselves, giving it a reputation for fact-checking, at least within the StarCraft community. Its also completely independent of Blizzard, and generally gives far more coverage of events like this than most "established" sources like IGN. I'd say that based on this, its usage within the scope of news for the game is reliable. I don't know why the url isn't redirecting properly, I'll have a look at the coding I've used. I'll also take a lookie at the other bits mentioned. Thanks for the review. -- Sabre (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your thoughts and understand your angle. It's just that if you were to try to push for GA or FA, it'd be one of the things that might be looked at further. It's why I mentioned it now - it's probably worth looking at to see if it can be backed up now instead of mid-GAN. Otherwise, it's great work for an unreleased game. Gazimoff ^Write_Read 20:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't had time to give the article a good run-down, I will do that later, but some preliminary comments:

• Officially, it's not cancelled. The tone of the gameplay suggests it has been. Also, the "could" and "would have" is highly annoying to read after a while. Perhaps saying "such and such was planned" and similar to reduce the redundancy?
  • I've had a go at trying to introduce some variety to wording, is that better? -- Sabre (talk)
• Minor grammar, I'll pick them out as I see them:
  • "after the cease in development in 2006." should be cessation, I think.
  • "Beyond the backstory for the game's central character very little has been revealed as to the story of the game", may want a comma, may not. Depends
• Any comments from game publications about Ghost's status, besides 'cancelled'?
  • I've added a quick note on IGN's reaction, I'm afraid that's as good as it gets, most of the rest stopped coverage with the note that it was cancelled and why, rather than their views on it. -- Sabre (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow, --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised by hbdragon88 to put the article in the past tense (see the first thread on this page). I can change it back if you want, but its unclear how much of these features will remain should Ghost ever re-emerge. I'll try to deal with the wording and any other issues you come across when I get home later. -- Sabre (talk) 09:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better, I can understand Hbd's comments. One thing, I just noticed "vapourware" in the lead, have you been writing the entire thing in British english or am I just blind? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, its been written entirely in British English. I am, after all, English, so its far easier for me to write in British English. The article should probably be in American English, but I don't know all the ins-and-outs of the changes from British English. -- Sabre (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guessed that from your username... :P Ok, it looks good to me, I'll pass it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Sabre (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back before StarCraft: Ghost was indefinitely postponed it was planned to be on Battle.net (GameCube & PS2 versions only, the Xbox version wouldn't according to Blizzard since Xbox doesn't allow such things).--4.244.42.10 (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]