Talk:Only Up!/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 03:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! This looks very interesting. I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. I hope this article passes; I would hate to see another quick fail. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 04:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it certainly could get to GA status! Let's resolve the sourcing issues and then I'll continue on with the prose and rest of the review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ganesha811 I have finished evaluating the sources. May we continue with the review? Thanks, Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 03:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC).

This article now meets the GA standard. Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it! —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	* I think 'Reception and legacy' should just be 'Reception'. The Fortnite map isn't precisely "legacy" and would still work just fine in the section. As per my usual practice, I've made tweaks to the prose myself to save us both time. If there are any changes you don't like, just let me know or change them back and we can discuss! Provisional pass.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Lots of sources I am unfamiliar with - need to look into these. I see this was also a topic of discussion in the first GA review. Can you make a case for Spiel Times being a reliable source? Appears to just be one person's blog. Can you make a case for AppTrigger being a reliable source? The steam post re: Abolicious is probably not OR, but it's non-independent, and a secondary source would be preferable if we have one that mentions this. What is the Softonic source, exactly? Softonic, as best I can tell, is a web host/portal, not a journalistic outfit. Is this just a blog? A couple sources, like the Lyons Gamereactor review or the Dexerto one, are duplicated. Please combine these so there are no duplications. Can you make a case for Try Hard Guides being a reliable source? Game Rant and TechRaptor have not been found to be generally reliable. If possible, especially where more than one source may cover the same information, please remove these and replace with other cites. Can you make a case for TechAU/Jason Cartwright being a reliable source/worth including? Appears to be just one guy's blog. Is he considered an influential gaming blogger? Issues addressed! Pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Citing the Sketchfab model itself seems to be skirting the line for OR. If possible, replace the cite for this information with a secondary source. Assuming that the nominator (@TrademarkedTarantula:) will get to this if they can, it's not enough to keep the article from GA. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing, hold for manual spot check. Nothing found, pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Unable to find other significant areas of coverage.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues of overdetail.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Pass, no issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding issues, pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Two appropriately tagged fair use images. I want to double-check that a video is acceptable as a fair use "screenshot", but on first spec I think it's not a problem. Provisional pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Pass, no problems.
	7. Overall assessment.

Reliability concerns

• SpielTimes: This article is written by Icon Roy, who is a journalism graduate. It used to be a single-person website, but now there's staff behind it: This page states that in order for a person to join SpielTimes, they must "possess great knowledge about the field they will apply for." However, they don't examine a person's resume, but rather their past work or portfolio. There is an editor-in-chief, but... I could easily replace this with another source because it's a basic part of the game. -> Replaced citation with Rock Paper Shotgun.
• AppTrigger: Removed. I figured that source can easily be replaced. -> Replaced citation with Kotaku.
• Abolicious post: Added IGN citation, but kept primary source (it's important to have the full message).
• Please explain duplicated.

• For instance, current cite #22 (Lyons, Ben (July 13, 2023). "Only Up!". Gamereactor. Retrieved September 17, 2023) appears to be exactly the same as cite #25 (Lyons, Ben (July 13, 2023). "Only Up!". Gamereactor. Retrieved September 17, 2023.) You can combine these in visual editor by simply deleting the duplicate and copying/pasting the other identical citation in its place. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Should be fixed now. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 23:28, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The Elie Gould piece is also duplicated. I don't see any others with a quick scan but please doublecheck. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done That should be everything. Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 23:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• GameRant and TechRaptor: Removed.
• Sources for reception: There are no reliable sources I could find. Metacritic doesn't show anything good. I guess the TechRadar review is the only one that's actually worth using in the reception section.

• Not sure what you mean - Automaton Media, Techradar, Gamereactor, Dexerto, should all be fine. And if you can make a reasonable case for Try Hard Games and TechAU, they would work too. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Softonic: You're right. It's a web portal with sponsored articles. Removed. Also, see this discussion at the RSN.
• TechAU: The article I'm using is written by a guy who has years of experience in journalism. I'm guessing it's worthy for inclusion. Also, the website states that they are independent from all subjects. However, there may be a slight chance this article is sponsored: this might be concerning. Kept review.
• Try Hard Guides: They claim that they've been mentioned in other video game publications. Not sure how I'll verify that, but assuming that's true, I guess that makes it somewhat credible. The people on the editorial team have credentials: [1] and [2]. Kept review.

• All looks fair enough! —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.