Talk:Orbiter (simulator)

Multiple issues

Can someone please clarify in what way these multiple issues apply to this article? Currently it has

I'd be happy to work on fixing these, and will, but I think some of these issues are a bit tenuous.

I'll also try and clean up the Original research in About the Simulator section. Metaphorazine (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to ask Jj98, who added the tags. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I've posted to his talk page asking for some clarification. If he doesn't respond, I'll see what I can do to tidy it up. Metaphorazine (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I did, there are numerous issues, including fancruft and essay. Also, this top section needs expansion by WP:LEAD. I don't know, you should ask or contact Martin Schweiger, the creator of Orbiter, he only knows about it. --JJ98 (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I can definitely see what you mean about the lead needing expansion, it is currently lacking. If the lead is re-written to be more descriptive, and the Included Spacecraft and the Orbiter Addons sections are re-written to be less list-like, and the article as a whole is better sourced and less conversational, would this address the majority of your concerns? Metaphorazine (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I have re-worded the lead and the first three paragraphs of the 'About the Simulator' section. Can anyone comment as to if I'm on the right track here? Metaphorazine (talk) 02:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you haven't already read it, I might suggest WP:VG/GL, the video games WikiProject guidelines/manual of style. That might give you a bit more advice on how to proceed. As to the changes in general... I think they're OK for the most part, but I think it's unusual to put reception stuff in the lead unless it's really really significant (e.g., game of the year). Other editors might see it as being non-neutral or fansite-like. There's still a lot of original research-sounding stuff in the about section. I definitely think you can go farther. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that reference, I think it's assisted me greatly. Some of the things that it suggests should be there are obviously not applicable (there's no plot!) but overall I think it's given me a lot of help with the tone. I've now re-written the lead keeping these principles and your comments in mind and I think it's an improvement, what do you think? If you feel it has expanded the lead sufficiently, could that tag be removed? Metaphorazine (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, the lead and the first three paragraphs have been tidied up, expanded on, and referenced. I feel that they are definitely an improvement, but would appreciate anyone's thoughts on this process as I may be a bit close to the topic considering how much attention I've given this article over the last few days. I've been concentrating on sourcing references and cleaning up some of the clumsy prose, hopefully someone else agrees that this is a step forward? I've also added several citation needed tags to the remainder of the article to give myself a roadmap for the rest of the article, if anyone thinks I've missed anything please jump in and tag it. Also, I have removed the "lead too short" part of the multiple issues tag at this stage. Metaphorazine (talk) 08:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)