This peer review has been closed and is now archived. Please make no efforts to edit its contents. Direct comments to the article's current talk page.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I've spent the last week rewriting 90% of it and I think the article is really good now, but not up to FA quality yet. I need opinions on what can be improved. Sections I believe need the most work are:

• The development section - may be a bit clunky, need opinions.
• Reception section - need to make sure its neutral and informative
• Edit: Character Section - It might be better to delete this and expand the setting section. Suggestions?

Basically, the article just need eyes prodding making sure it flows and covers all the bases so it can join its Shock brethren as an FA. Ill be around to respond to posts. Thanks for all the help, I really appreciate it. Noj r (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style. If you would find such a review helpful, please click here. Thanks, APR _t 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "one of the greatest games ever made", though technically correct, could be phrased better, and less WP:PEACOCK like.
• Describing speculation and "cult status" is usually difficult, but this article does an excellent job.
• Some of the jargon in Gameplay needs explanation. For example, why is ammo conservation an element of survival horror? What is a HUD? What is OSA?
• Do not use gaming jargon like "stats" and "non-scripted".
• Do not use weasel words like "many players".
• The article (over)uses expressions like "RPG elements" and "Shooter elements" a lot. Try to diversify the language there a little.
• The last sentence of Development is speculation, write something like ".. was cancelled at the same time as the dev going out of business" rather than "presumably because".
• The ((main)) template in Legacy is out of place.
• The "Fan modifications" section may need to go entirely, but at least the in-line external links need to be removed. Sourcing to forums and websites of mods as the only source is unacceptable, too.

User:Krator (t c) 12:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This sentence stuck out a bit: 'The horror elements in System Shock 2 are quite pronounced and many players have found the game to be unsettling.' At least remove the 'many' (weasel word, as above). Saying the elements are 'quite pronounced' seems a bit ORish though it's probably supported overall by the references at the end of the paragraph. However, it's a bit unnecessary anyway; I'd introduce the topic of presentation with a more neutral sounding sentence.
• The "fan modification" sites in the external links should probably go. I haven't checked them properly but fan sites are discouraged; modding sites are unnecessary for information purposes anyway.
• Other than that it seems pretty good. It's especially nice that it has a substantial development section which is hard for older games. In fact older, relatively obscure games are hard to write about in general, good job. Bridies (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]