Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Metroid Dread/1

Metroid Dread

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Procedural Keep as per summary by CMD. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This article has met an issue putting its status into question. Originally a presumed-cancelled title, Metroid Dread has recently been re-announced for the Nintendo Switch for a release date this year (link). I originally reviewed this article and passed it in 2016, when there was no indication of the title being revived in any form. This article can no longer be static, since it will receive media attention of different types in the near future, and the subject matter will undergo a definite change from unfinished project to finished game. Revised (Final) Opinion: Considering what it is and dev comments so far, I'm swaying towards this article being delisted and expanded to reflect the changed status, so it may be renominated post-release and reception. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Judgesurreal777, Abryn, Popcornfud, HumanBodyPiloter5, and Alexandra IDV: This video interview with producer Yoshio Sakamoto covers the title's origins and how it's started again. Hope this clarifies things for everyone here, and those yet to comment. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I agree. We should delist it for the time being. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• This article is clearly about a cancelled title which received enough attention to be notable in the early-2000s and not about the new title which shares the same name. The article on the cancelled title should keep its GA status and be moved to Metroid Dread (cancelled video game) while the newly announced game should get its own article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist. I disagree with HumanBodyPiloter5. We should only have one Metroid Dread article. When the game is released and we have a fully mature article covering it (development, gameplay, reception etc) then the existing information on the DS development and cancellation can be covered in the same article. It's not a huge amount of information as is, so it's not going to bloat anything. Popcornfud (talk) 19:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment: As far as I'm concerned, the article in its current state is already radically different - both in terms of its content, and in terms of what the article subject actually is - from the version that passed GA that we might as well start again and treat it as a different article. Popcornfud (talk) 11:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delist, and cover everything in the same article - from how they talked about it at E3, it's clear that the Switch incarnation of Dread is not just an unrelated game reusing the same title.--Alexandra^IDV 20:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as GA - This is a very unique circumstance, and we shouldn’t rush to make this not a GA. Very little info is out yet about the game so the article isn’t yet unstable or incomplete. Also better to have one strong GA than two small ones. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist and keep it as a single article. A renomination can be called for when it gets to be more stable. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist And keep a single article, similar to Duke Nukem Forever._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist — While i agree on removing the GA tag on Dread's article for the time being, i highly disagree with making another article based on the same subject. As explained by Sakamoto, Dread entered development two times before each iteration was canned until MercutySteam was brought on board to finally make Dread a reality. Keep it as a single article. Roberth Martinez (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist, and move nothing. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect the upcoming game. Although development was restarted, I don't think there's a strong argument for having two articles, one covering a video game of the same name that does not (and will never exist). They're the same subject. This article just needs to be restructured. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist The video interview with Sakamoto linked above confirms that this new Dread is a resurrection of the old Dread project. One article should be kept. Renomination should not be considered until the game has released. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 22:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist and keep the current article where it is. It no longer qualifies as a GA since it's an incomplete article about a game that's being released in about four months; it fails the "broad in its coverage" criterion quite spectacularly, as does any pre-release game or movie or album. Once the new game has been released and there has been time after that for reviews and sales numbers and the like, the article can be updated with the new information and nominated afresh. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist per my previous questiong as to how, per WP:GA? #3A it passed in the first place. ——Serial 04:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• At the time of the review, the game wasn't going to come out. So, it did indeed meet the main aspects like any other unreleased media. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It did not, no. ——Serial 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as GA - how is this different from any other article being a GA, and then having more information added. Is there anything that the article can do right now to make it better? No. It requires the game and reviews and such to come out. There really should be some sort of grace period after an event to fix up an article before we demote it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• At this point the article is liable to undergo such massive changes that keeping it as a GA would probably not reflect the current content of the article and lead to people getting the wrong idea about the authoritativeness of the content. And it's unlikely to be stable enough to be re-approved as a GA until post-release. I'm actually a bit surprised that a vaporware would be able to become a GA in the first place given the major lack of concrete info._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

• Delist per the others. I'm also going to say that I oppose a split as well, as the Sakamoto interview confirms that the new Dread is the same game. JOEBRO64 15:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist per imminent failing of WP:GACR #3 and #5. Also oppose any split, as this is presumably the same game. --MuZemike 15:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist and do not split. Agree that as an upcoming game, it immediately fails GACR 3 & 5. When the article passed review, it was effectively vaporware/a cancelled project similar to the Pirates game that never materialised. — CR4ZE (T • C) 06:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Delist and do not split: it's not a criticism of the article that it should be delisted. The subject is undergoing a dramatic shift in facts, and in time, this article could be ready for GA again. In the meantime this article shouldn't be misrepresented as "good" quality, until things stabilize. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as GA. The GA criterion for stability specifically says that it refers to an "ongoing edit war or content dispute" and that "good faith improvements to the page...do not apply to the 'stable' criterion." As long as the article maintains its quality, isn't subject to edit wars, and is updated with new information as necessary, it should remain a GA. —tktktk 15:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

  You're speaking purely in hypothetical. "As long as x doesn't happen" is a moot point if there is any likelihood that x may happen. The content of the article will undergo significant change, but that's besides the point. With the game moving from cancelled to upcoming, the article now fails criterion 3a. Evaluation of a game's post-release reception is essential content according to WP:VG/GL. Without that, the article falls short and should only be renominated once the game has been released and a substantial reception section is written. — CR4ZE (T • C) 12:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It is people using the possibility of instability who are using a hypothetical to argue for delisting—and again, only the specific types of instability I mentioned would cause the article to fail that criterion. As for reception being "essential content", I think it's implied that such a criterion would only apply to released games—otherwise, this article would never have been a GA in the first place. —tktktk 13:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as GA. I get the above argument but it's a tad overzealous. This is no different than an existing GA needing significant expansion. We should afford the authors time to expand the article as new sources become available. When the article significantly lags behind the sourcing, sure, delist away. We don't delist articles for missing content that has yet to be published. As for whether it should be split as a separate article, independent notability has no bearing on the GA criteria and belongs for discussion on the article's talk page, not in a GA reassessment. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as GA. The reviews for the games release are not out yet so let's wait a few months after they release before assessing criteria #3.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Keep I procedurally closed this with the following This is not actually a unique case. Many Good articles need updating all the time and it has been decided that this is not a reason to delist. Anyway it can’t fail 3A until reviews have actually been released. Also there is some debate on a split, something that needs to be decided at the talk page, which means that it is possible that the article might not need to be updated either. The instructions above say that the “aim is not to delist the article but to fix it”. That aim cannot be met with preemtive reassessments.

This was reverted as a supervote and no further explanation has been received. It is not a supervote as consensus is not decided on head count and to delist an article referencing the failing criteria is not enough, it also needs to be demonstrated how it fails the criteria. That means it is not just about saying it fails the broadness criteria, you need to show information exists that is not in the article. This has not been done by any of the delist !votes above, in fact most make no mention of the criteria at all.

Furthermore the premise behind this reassessment is so flawed that I felt a procedural close was in order. We are not looking at a unique case. In fact articles needing to be updated is more the norm. Think every BLP, every current sports team or tv series. Even scientific and cultural topics are consistently being advanced. The concept that articles likely to undergo future changes should be delisted has been rejected [Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs]. The correct process in this situation is to discuss the makeup of the article on the talk page and then wait for the release. If it has not been updated after a reasonable time then it can be brought here. This gives interested editors a chance to get the article up to standard. The aim is always to fix an article not delist it.

Anyway I have no real interest in the article beyond it getting a fair showing here, so won’t close it again. I will just leave this as a !vote. Aircorn (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. Certainly, with the votes split as they are now, closing would be premature. I agree that many of the other !delists have not made much mention of GA?, but it's a bit steep and auspicious to your own argument to say that none of them have. This is not the same as "articles needing to be updated" (OTHERSTUFF?). My view, simply, is that the article fails 3a: 4 & 5 certainly have potential to be issues as well, although we could say the same for almost any other current GA. The crux of the issue that !keep voters are ignoring is that the article is incomplete. I bring attention again to WP:VG/GL#Essential content. It is vital (especially to establish N) that articles for entertainment products evaluate impact/reception respective to the industry field. We can't do that for upcoming games. I've quick-failed GANs for upcoming games before, and when it was questioned at WT:VG, consensus was in my favour. To be clear, we handle cancelled/vapourware games (a category this article used to belong to) differently. Duke Nukem Forever could have been a GA at any point prior to 3 September 2010 (when it was reannounced); in fact, its (now) GA-Class Development child article was split off a couple months later. I cited the Pirates game (FA) as an example. This article was fair game for GA/FA status until it was reannounced, which is what sparked this GAR in the first place. Much of the literature discussing the gameplay and development reference a previous version of the game that was scrapped, so we have no idea if any of this remains accurate. The sole cited gameplay source is a good start, but not enough verifiability to hang an entire GA on. I don't see the application of pressure on editors to keep this article to GA standard when its content will undergo substantative change as fair, and frankly, advocating for !keep is diminishing the standards expected by criterion 3 & 5. TLDR: No reception = incomplete article. There's no reason this can't be renominated after release, when the game can be evaluated fairly. (ping czar; assume the others are watching/can respond unprompted if desired.) — CR4ZE (T • C) 07:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there a formal consensus on this point that unreleased games without Reception sections do not qualify for GA? If so, I'd like to see it. For what it's worth, I don't think WP:VG/GL was drafted with the intention of barring articles from GA without including every section mentioned. Every article is judged on its own merits and I don't see any other option but addressing breadth at the time of review.

I'll compare this situation to an existing GA game article before a remaster is announced. Does the lack of a finished reception information about the remaster preclude the article's completeness? I'd think not. This article can be complete for breadth without the game having been released. czar 04:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

The question here isn't anything to do with whether unreleased/cancelled titles can't be GAs, the point here is that this article is now about an extant unreleased title, which changes its status and eligibility. It will undergo substantial change beyond the normal scope of updating GAs, hence why I started this dratted thing in the first place. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

A formal consensus? Not that I'm aware, although there ought to be. Certainly worth raising with the project. What I will say is that I've never, in many years as an editor, come across a successful GA for an upcoming film/album/book/etc (key word: upcoming). If that's a situation that's happened before, I'm not aware of it. I would think there's an agreed-upon rule across the board to withhold from formal review processes until after release.

You're of course correct that the guidelines weren't written to bar prospective GANs. However, they do provide a clear framework for how game articles should be structured and there are rare, if any, exceptions. The GA criteria is a universal guideline that applies to all articles, but WPVG provides the specific model for essential content relevant to a category of articles. Just about every project will have similar guidelines, forged by consensus.

As for remasters, the answer would be a simple no. That is because the main subject of the article would be the original release, not the remaster. OK Computer is an example that comes to mind; the 20th anniversary remaster did not jeopardise the article's FA status because the main body of the article would not have needed to be updated. A cancelled game resurrected by a new developer with (likely) a new engine on a new platform is not in the same ballpark. — CR4ZE (T • C) 10:51, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

For me, it comes down to the GAN breadth criterion. I think it's a reasonable point to say that an article will soon need reassessment if passed today because it will be released tomorrow, but I think that needs to be addressed in the criteria for fairness. Since the article doesn't say so, I feel like I should also ask how sure we are that this game by this title is definitely picking up where the prior development left off. czar 06:59, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I didn't say none mentioned the GA criteria, I said most had not and that those that did had failed show how it actually fails the criteria in its current state. Also there seems to be a misunderstanding by many on how broadness works. There needs to be information available to add that has not been added for it to fail that criteria (see Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#(3) Broad in its coverage where under mistakes to avioid it says Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources.) It is why short articles with not many references can become GA's. It is only incomplete when reception is released and nothing is added (and even then we give editors a chance to update it). As of now it is as complete as it can be. Or at least it hasn't been shown that it is incomplete beyond crystal balling. How the video game project does things is irrelevant as the GA area has a higher community consensus. If the Video Game guidelines contradict the GA process then the Video Game guidelines need to be changed, or a consensus needs to be developed here (not at the video game wikiproject) that video game articles are an exception.

As to stability, or in this case the prospect of future heavy editing, as I linked to above it has been agreed upon that the potential (however likely) for future editing is not a reason to delist.

I will just add since notability was mentioned that notability has nothing to do with the GA criteria. That is the realm of AFD. Aircorn (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• Keep for now - The upcoming game is duly mentioned in the article. Since the upcoming game has not yet come out, there's not going to be enough to say about it to really have a broadness issue. I don't see a broadness issue coming around until October at the earliest, as it will take some time for the reviews of the new version to come out. It's not a broadness issue if the missing information doesn't exist yet. Hog Farm _Talk 19:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Keep as GA. Good article status is not a canon version of the article that isn't supposed to undergo major changes. The article simply needs to be updated with new information i.e. it needs adding to. It doesn't need a rewrite or some kind of fundamental transformation. If after a while it appears that the article is out of date after all, and/or that the quality of the additions isn't quite as high, a real revision can be had. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delist With the game coming out this year in just a few months away, I don't think it's crystal ball to suggest the release of this game is coming soon. There will be gameplay, and there will be a reception and new development information. I believe Delisting it now is the best course of action. The article is being reinvented as a canceled project to a properly announced game that will release.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not seeing how this is any different than any other good article that will need updating in the future. If a sportsman signs for a new club, a tech company releases a new product, a TV series gets renewed, etc the articles will need new reception sections and all the rest. There is no precedent for delisting articles because of this, consensus is actually the opposite (see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_153#RfC: Proposal: make subjects actively in the news ineligible for GANs and FACs) Aircorn (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Aircorn: Because this isn't about updating new information and expanding the same article. The article itself is now recontextualized because of the new information and has to be rewritten in a different light. It is no longer a 15-year old canceled game that some reviewers want to bring back, it is now a full-fledged game in the making releasing soon with new aspects that need attention in order to be a GA. Reception, Gameplay, Development. I believe the article needs to be re-assessed as a new article, not the same one.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk)

• It will still need this information as background to its development, so is essentially still just an expansion. It is not uncommon, for a high profile example Barack Obama was a FA before he became president and remained one throughout (and not surprisingly the article has changed significantly [1] withthe addition of multiple new sub sections over this time). If the game gets released and it is not updated with the appropriate sections in a timely manner then delisting is fine. This type of technical delisting is out of process and not the purpose of reassessments. Aircorn (talk) 00:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• I simply don't see it as just an expansion. Barack Obama is a living person whose profession is bound to change. He isn't a project that was notable for being canceled, now an upcoming game that will need to meet other criteria.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Delist per many others. And definitely keep as one article, if that is even up for debate any more. --Torsodog^Talk 23:43, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Delist – proper review wasn't even done. The reception section contains literally one sentence. – zmbro _(talk) 16:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The current state of the article is significantly different than it was when it was reviewed; the review was of a cancelled video game, which is what the article was at the time, so please note that the reviewer was not derelict in their review duties. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Exactly, there’s no way that a reviewer reviewing an article for a cancelled game in October 2016 can faulted for a one sentence reception section that was added after it was reannounced in June 2021.--65.92.161.147 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Delist. Wait, an article about an upcoming product got GA status? How on Earth did that happen, I thought that was illegel. 👨x🐱 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The article was made GA back when it was just a cancelled video game. It's nominated because, following being labeled GA, development began again. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • It was also announced again over 4 and a half years after the review so no one could have reasonably guessed that it would return.--65.92.161.147 (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• keep as GA Came to close, but I disagree with the numeric consensus. Nothing in the WP:GA criteria prevent this from being a GA just because its an ongoing event or likely to see major changes. Only in the case of an edit war or content dispute does an article fail the criteria. As long as it is kept updated, folks would need to identify actual problems with the article or an editorial dispute, not just that changes are coming. If someone wants GA criteria 5 to include a case like this, the wording needs to change. As it stands it only addresses stability issues due to content disputes. Hobit (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Hobit: the reason why is that the article has now been recontextualized and the information re-organized, and what was considered Reception or aftermath of the article is now just another step in its progression. The problem is that new info is releasing. New info such as gameplay, new development info, and Reception. All of that has to be monitored to see if it meets GA quality.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. And if at any point it doesn't, then fair enough to remove the GA status. But I don't see anything that says that rapidly changing topics should be delisted. People have cited criteria 3 and 5, but neither seems applicable. I can see an IAR argument, but I disagree with it--I don't see a reason to take an article that meets the requirements of a GA and delist it in the theory it won't stay a GA-quality article. Hobit (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• The criteria changed the moment it was reconfirmed. It's an upcoming title, not a confirmed canceled game. The reactions of its initial cancellation and rumors are no longer what helps make it notable, it has been recontextualized, and now the new info is needed.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• A) It's what makes it notable now. Otherwise probably a WP:CRYSTAL issue? B) who cares? Is the text bad? Is this not a good article? If the article doesn't meet the WP:GA criteria, fine, let's delist it. But I've seen no strong case made for that. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
• For A, because the article is recontextualized, I do not agree the previous content is what helps it be notable now. Did you revise the changes from before and after it was confirmed as an upcoming game? Even if it reconfirmed canceled, the previous content was for a 2005 canceled game, not a 2021 canceled game.As the game is now, no crystal, I do not agree it meets GA.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Having read above, I come to the view that per the current criteria this is a procedural keep. We cannot expect the current article to have information about gameplay, release, reception, etc., as the game currently has not been released. It does not lack such coverage, because such coverage does not exist. I think a good time to reassess on those grounds would perhaps be November, giving some time for reliable sources to process the game and for this article to reflect those. CMD (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)