Curse of the Bambino and Talk:Eastern Front (1941): Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Clyde Miller (talk | contribs) →[[WP:VG]] Assessment: reply |
|||
Line 1:
{{SGames|class=start|importance=mid}}
{{cvgproj|class=start|importance=Mid}}
== [[WP:VG]] Assessment ==
*The Gameplay section is a textbook example of how '''not''' to write a gameplay section.
:*No references outside the official manual, and no information ''beyond'' the official manual. The official manual is a game guide, something [[WP:NOT|Wikipedia is not]].
:*Specifically, button sequences are not to be mentioned in Wikipedia, as they are unencyclopaedic game guide content.
:*Content beyond the game manual could explain what was so revolutionary about this game, and innovative and new features.
:*Some unsourced opinions are present in this section.
:*Some content in the Gameplay section belongs in a "Plot" or "Setting" section, explaining the world the game takes place in. A multitude of links to historical pages would be appropriate in such a section.
*The AI section has walkthrough-like game guide information that should be removed. Specific tactics do not belong here.
*I am missing a reception section, describing what reviewers thought of the game.
*As a tip, old magazines may prove a valuable source.
Kept start-class, lack of third party references and too much game guide information makes it unfit for B.
--[[User:Krator]] ([[User talk:Krator|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Krator|c]]) 11:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
:Sorry, I did not see this edit pop up in my watchlist for some reason. The only comments I saw were Clyde's on my own talk page.
:Given the length of the list above, I'd like to start with only one:
:''As a tip, old magazines may prove a valuable source.''
:I extensively refed this article. I don't have them handy now, but I believe the total consists of four print reviews, one web review, one print article, one book and one game manual (of two, the cart version was different, as noted). I personally hand-copied the one print article onto the web. Two of the five reviews is available on the web, plus one I wrote for Moby. Of these sources, I used the print article, the book (which required an in-person visit to a reference library), the manual and one of the reviews. That's well over half of ''all'' of the material available, and everything that isn't simply redundant.
:Clyde's complaint was "not enough refs", and here its "lack of third party references".
:I guess my question is this: if the topic at hand comes from a time when print was expensive what sort of yardstick should we use to say "enough"? If there's some sort of fixed guideline we may be in trouble, if it's like "one separate source per paragraph" then there are a huge number of topics that will never meet this criterion . On the other hand I am equally concerned about bilge like [[Halo: Combat Evolved]], where ''every single statement'' has it's own separate ref, and it did got FA even though it renders the article almost unreadable.
:So, is there some sort of happy medium here? Or perhaps some other solution?
: [[User:Maury Markowitz|Maury]] 20:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
::I actually didn't know that Krator made comments here (I was making reference to mine on the S GAMES talk), but it works just as fine here (BTW I didn't make the comment on your talk either; I think that was Giggy). As to why everything is format related, I am not familiar with the content, but the polishing done to the article is part of how developed it is. For example, I prefer cite web to regular hand-written web citations so I know who the publisher and author are. It helps give credibility to the ref and me a better understanding on what's being referenced. People have different reasons for wanting formatting a certain way, so I think it's important. Regarding the ratings, you disagreed with B and Start, so I'm guessing you want it to be GA. We cannot make it GA without it first passing as a [[WP:GAC|good article candidate]], so you were as high as you could go with ratings at the moment. That was why I was confused.
::The article says "unless otherwise stated it's from here." I think that's okay, but I (and I think others too) would prefer it as a reference instead of an external link. As I recall, external links are for extra info at the end of the article. Since you are using that article as a reference, it would be nice to see it in the reference section of the article. I've seen where it's not specific citations; however, the most accepted way to verify stuff is to cite the facts the reference can back up; in this case, most of the gameplay section. I agree with you that overciting is bad, and a reviewer on the FAC told me to only have a particular citation once in a paragraph. Mainstream articles like Halo assert a lot of facts and are seen by a lot of people, so they must be sure it is tight. This is the basis of citations; if the fact is likely to be challenged, it needs a citation. More people, more challenging. You said you researched this with eightish references. Yet there are only 5 citations and zero general references. What happened to all the refs? I don't know exactly what the references were, but were there any that had opinions or reviews? Most people are flexible with a game this old. The interviews could also be used in a development section. There looked like there was a bit more info there (but I wasn't sure).--[[User:Clyde Miller|Clyde]] ([[User talk:Clyde Miller|talk]]) 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
| |||