Jump to content

Talk:Day of Defeat: Source

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDay of Defeat: Source has been listed as one of the Video games 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
DateProcessResult
June 23, 2008Good article nomineeListed

Day of Defeat Source Steamworks Update in Beta

[edit]

There is a new beta update for DOD:S :

A new update adding support for Steamworks is currently available in beta for Day of Defeat: Source, the popular World War II online action game from Valve, creators of the Half-Life and Counter-Strike games.

Leveraging the recently released free set of services available in Steamworks, the Day of Defeat update will add 51 achievements for DoD, player avatar display in the scoreboard and win panel, and detailed player statistics integrated with the Steam Community features (www.steamcommunity.com).

This update also adds support for popular features introduced in Valve's Team Fortress 2 (TF2), the PC title named multiplayer game of the year by Gamespy.com and PC Gamer. These include "nemesis/revenge" freeze cam and new effects driven by the particle system introduced to the Source engine for TF2.

In addition, this update will also introduce a new map, dod_Palermo, which is a remix of the most popular community map, dod_salerno.

Owners of Day of Defeat: Source, retail and Steam versions, may join the beta free of charge.

— Valve, Steam News, 2008-05-23

atrpunk07 11:10, 23 May 2008 (GMT+2) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atrpunk07 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added source link, refactored it so we can tell what's quoted and what's your comment. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Day of Defeat: Source/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • "evolved from being a straight conversion of Day of Defeat by altering certain aspects of the game's design and introducing several new features" - when reading the "evolved" I was expecting an "evolved from... to..."... can you format it like that, the way it currently is takes a bit of time to make sense of (for me at least).
  • "being praised for its..." - would work better without the "being" (at least)
  • "Players select from one as six classes to play as, each with its own role within the team" - one OF six?
  • I think the Game modes section should be split into two paragraphs at least.
  • "Phong shading, depth of field, color correction and film grain effects in use." - I'm not seeing them. :) Can you be more specific?
  • I don't think you need to say how many reviews it's based on in the Compilations of multiple reviews section of the reviewbox.
  • "receiving a rating of 80% on the review aggregation site Metacritic[34] and an 81% rating on Game Rankings" - reword this so you're saying that both MC and GA are review aggregators (at the moment you're only saying that MC is).
  • [1] his full name is Shawn Elliot (does "1UP editor" imply staff?)
  • I don't think the second external link is necessary.
  • I'm not convinced that having that many images is absolutely necessary.

And please leave me a note when done. Cheers, giggy (:O) 06:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1.  Done, I've reworded it a bit to ditch the use of evolved. Any better?
  2.  Done
  3.  Done
  4.  Done
  5.  Done The phong effects were the shine on the helmet, depth of field's the fact its focused on the machine gunner, film grain's the general effect applied over the whole image. The problem is the fair use size has reduced the extent that you can clearly see some effects, principly the film grain. You needed to open up the image to get a good look at it. I've replaced it with another image where the effects are more apparent.
  6.  Not done Plenty of other articles do. It comes down to editor choice rather than any guideline or convention.
    Shrugs. Probably editor choice. giggy (:O) 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  Done
  8.  Done The reference had "|fist=Shawn" rather than "|first=Shawn", so his first name wasn't turning up.
  9.  Done
  10.  Not done I'd disagree with this one. In addition to the box art, we've got an in-game view from the player's perspective, showing the Italian environments, another in-game view from a third-person perspective, showing the player characters in a firefight. Getting decent shots of player characters in-game is rather hard to do, you generally get shot before you get a chance to take a screenshot. The other two show the game at an earlier stage of development, a reasonably useful image for readers, and one showing post-processing effects as well as exemplifying the marketing of the game. Ok, you couldn't make out the effects in the image, so I've replaced it with one where effects are more pronounced - although it lacks the phong shading. Each image has a distinct purpose in mind, they all seem valid to me.
    The new image is much more effective. giggy (:O) 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that should be all of them. -- Sabre (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This GAN has passed, and this is now a good article! If you found this review helpful, please consider helping out a fellow editor by reviewing another good article nomination. Help and advice on how to do so is available at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles, and you can ask for the help of a GAN mentor, if you wish.

Cheers, giggy (:O) 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valve Task Force Re-vitalization

[edit]

Attention, all contributors to the Valve Task Force and the articles it constitutes!
I am here to announce that I will be re-vitalizing the Valve Task Force, aimed at universally improving articles constituting Valve Corporation, their employees, associates and products. This specific task force has been dormant for quite some time and with two very notable releases coming out this year, I feel like this is the appropriate time to re-stimulate the general aim of this group. For those who are not already members of the Valve Task Force, feel free to add your name to our members list and contribute to whatever articles you feel your contributions may prove beneficial for. Valve, its products and notable employees have proven to be essential to the progression of the video game industry, so I'd like to make a call of arms for this cause. DarthBotto talk•cont 22:06, 08 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Day of Defeat: Source. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Day of Defeat: Source. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Day_of_Defeat:_Source&oldid=1206897278"