Talk:PETA satirical browser games

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:PETA satirical browser games/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Introductory remarks: This article is at the intersection of two issues I find especially interesting—animal rights and video games—and I am already familiar with some of the PETA games. I look forward to reviewing this article in the next few days. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool! Never thought it would get picked up so quickly, particularly since my last GAN was WP:VG's oldest by almost a month. I'm also interested in both issues (I'm a vegetarian, leaning towards vegan), so I found this an interesting topic to write about, not least because of its infamy. Tezero (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Note: Review based on this version of the article.

This short-and-sweet article is very good. Some comments below; more are forthcoming.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Per WP:LEAD#Format of the first sentence, "[i]f the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it" and "if the article's title is absent from the first sentence, do not apply the bold style to related text that does appear." Thus, the bold text "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals" and "browser games" should be unbolded. Given the forced constructions it would likely produce, this article probably shouldn't attempt to include the article title in the first sentence.

   Fixed. Tezero (talk) 04:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

   Concerning the "Titles" section list, I noted that it says that only PETA games that have received press coverage are included. However, per WP:WORKS, when using a list of works, "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet." Are there any additional PETA games that haven't received press coverage but have been noted on the current PETA website or an archive of it? If so, that sourcing should be sufficient to include them in the list. (Not required for GA status)

   Concerning the lead: in the lead's second paragraph, criticism of the games are described in broad terms (as appropriate for the lead), but the few positive responses are described in specifics, which is more detail than appropriate for the lead. Furthermore, inclusion of any of the positive responses in the lead presents issues of undue weight given the overwhelmingly negative feedback on the games. And this article is so short, it probably doesn't merit having a two-paragraph lead. I would simply delete the second sentence of the second paragraph and merge the second paragraph's first sentence into the first paragraph.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   The following sources are unreliable or have questionable reliability. However, because some of these present close cases, I feel it is appropriate for me to ask for a second opinion—from someone with more expertise in the area of video game sourcing than I am—whether these sources are reliable:

   • Kotaku: I was unsure whether this source should be considered reliable, so I consulted the WP:VG/S guideline, which states (concerning Kotaku as a source): "News posts after 2010 are considered reliable. For posts before 2010, only those (significant) opinion posts that are written by established writers are allowed." Two of the Kotaku sources used here were published pre-2010, and I am not sure whether their authors are "significant", although I am inclined to err on the side of caution and view these sources as unreliable.

   • They're both by Mike Fahey. It looks like he still writes, and this article says the office felt very empty without him, which implies he has a significant role there. Your call, I guess, though it'd be tough to replace those sources. Tezero (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

   • Daily Mail: Has been determined to be unreliable on WP:RSN for inaccuracy.
   • G4TV: Does not appear to have any editorial oversight; its staff page lists only a "General Manager" and "VP", not any senior or reviewing editors, etc.

   • It's owned by X-Play, which per WP:VG/RS is a reliable source. (That page also specifies G4 as one of its cite-able subsidiaries.) Tezero (talk) 20:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

   • Ian Bogot blog: A self-published source, but it appears that both Ian and the guest author for the cited article appear to be experts with third-party publications, so I'm inclined to view this as reliable.
   • Some of the sources do not identify of which the actual games the PETA game is parodying (e.g., reference 8 does not say "New Super Mario Bros."; reference 6 does not say "Frogger"), but I doubt such statements will be challenged.
   • Not required for GA status, but a page citation for source 5 would be helpful.

   C. No original research:

   "Possibly as a result" - the source discusses Edmund's forum campaign, but it doesn't speculate that the PETA game was developed as a result of it. This fragment should be dropped or reworded. Also, it would be helpful to have a source that specified Edmund's last name, since the G4TV source does not.

   Fixed that wording and found a source for his full name. Tezero (talk) 20:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is written in an impartial tone and reflects a neutral point of view. Due weight is given to both various aspects of the subject (in accordance with WP:BALASPS) and the viewpoints on it (per WP:DUE)—which the sources show are more negative than positive, as is depicted in the article.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I took the liberty of augmenting the fair use rationale of the lead image. Both images satisfy Wikipedia's copyright requirements.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Per WP:CAP, picture captions should clearly identify the subject of the image. The caption File:Tanuki01 960.jpg does discuss raccoons, but it does identify the subject of the image as raccoons.

   It says "similar to those shown here". Why isn't that enough? Tezero (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

   An excellent question. I read that caption a couple of times, but apparently I was distracted by the cuteness of the furry creatures and glossed over those 5 words. Please disregard the above; criterion 6(B) is satisfied. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Comment Consider how the article is laid out. You have a bunch of games, and then a bunch of reception. I think it'd be more coherent if the article were ordered by game, each with their respective reception. Right now, there's no real cohesion to either section. - hahnchen 00:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• I thought about doing it; it creates an awful lot of sections, though, without much content in each. There's also the fact that some critics have commented on the series as a whole. Tezero (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: The article's section layout meets the criteria of WP:LAYOUT and thus is satisfactory for meeting the GA criteria. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 03:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

@Prototime: do you have other comments I should be aware of? Tezero (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm conducting a source review and spotcheck, and I will have further comments tomorrow. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 02:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

On hold to allow above issues to be addressed; second opinion requested on the source reliability questions described above. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 01:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I... There's so much here, so many sources I'm not sure I'll be able to replace, so much content I don't know whether to include, so much reorganization I'm not confident will be enough to make the page look sufficiently nice. I, to put it succinctly, am overwhelmed. In addition, I'm in a tumultuous situation with my parents and have a large amount of moving things around that will continue over the next few days. And even when I'm here, I have the Sonic notability discussions to tend to, of which most seem to be losing battles... What I'm trying to say here is that I won't blame you if you fail this article because of all of the issues and my relative lack of time. You don't have to, and I'm determined to at least get most of these issues underway in a few days at the latest, but just keep this in mind. Tezero (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no rush. I'm willing to allow the GA review to remain open until we receive a second opinion on the sourcing issues, and if outstanding issues remain after that, I'll allow the review to be put on hold for at least another week. If there's extenuating circumstances, I'm open to extending the hold period longer than that by a reasonable amount, too. You're welcome to withdraw the nomination at any time if you wish, but as I say, there's no rush at this point. I hope you're able to sort things out elsewhere in the meantime! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 04:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Prototime: Alright, I'm back. Between the onerous discussions about Sonic characters, a bad experience with a certain plant and the law, and fickle employers, it's been tough, but I'm back. Has there been a consensus on the sources? If the Daily Mail's still there, I'll remove it and look for alternatives. Tezero (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad you're back, Tezero! We're still waiting for a second opinion on reliability of the sources listed above, but in the meantime you may wish to respond to the other points raised in the review. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Tezero: Concerning the sources, your explanations above have demonstrated that those sources are reliable. However, there are still a couple issues with the lead that need to be addressed before promotion (see above). –Prototime (talk · contribs) 22:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Alright, did those. Tezero (talk) 23:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Passed. Congratulations to Tezero for a great job creating this article and bringing it up to GA status! –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

History section

I made a few tweaks this morning listing PETA's first game as Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes and Lobster Liberation as suggested by the gameranx.com interview. And it's true that these were the first two developed specifically for PETA's main organization. But as the archive.org link shows, there were two other video games listed on the original games page that correspond to PETA side-projects. Investigations into these show that they predate RotPT and LL:

• Save the Chicks (early 2003) - Produced for PETA's anti-Kentucky-Fried-Chicken campaign (KFCCruelty.com)
• Make Fred Spew (mid-2001) - Produced for PETA's anti-milk campaign (MilkSucks.com)

I find next to no information on these games, but they evidently represent PETA's true firsts. If anyone finds any info on them then please update the article accordingly. -Thibbs (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• The thing is, I don't know if either of these has received secondary source coverage. So I can add mentions of them, but only for starting off the franchise or something, not in the list of games that have received media attention. Tezero (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah that's what I meant by "If anyone finds any info on them". RS info of course. I haven't seen any. In fact I'm really not sure I'd list Lobster Liberation and Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes as having "received press coverage" either. There's a few mentions in scholarly sources, and of course there's the interview which probably counts as a primary source, but none of that is really "press coverage." I do think it's important to list the actual historical origins rather than just saying "PETA's first game was released in 2007" or "PETA's first game was released in 2004" when in fact the first game was released in 2001, though. If no RS material can back up the actual release dates for the original games then I'd say just omit any claim of "first release." Better that than misleading readers. -Thibbs (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• That's what I've done. PETA's games being known has seemed like a gradual process. Tezero (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• OK. The article still says "PETA's first venture into gaming came in 2004", though, and the evidence shows that it was actually in 2001. So if we can find (RS) info on either of the two previous games (Save the Chicks or Make Fred Spew) then I suggest we add it. Until then we might consider modifying it somehow to match the facts. So for instance we might say that "Lobster Liberation and Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes were the first games to have been created for the main PETA campaign <ref = gameranx.com interview> although previous PETA-created games were released for specific PETA campaigns in 2003<ref = kfccruelty.com link> and 2001<ref = milksucks.com link>." Something like that. -Thibbs (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Well I found 3 RS refs that cover Save the Chicks and Make Fred Spew. One covers StC, one covers MFS, and one covers both. The mentions are brief for the most part, but enough to show that these games did get some small non-gaming-community coverage. So I updated the history section and linked the Internet Archive captures of their earliest versions as well. If there is any further need for tweaking this section, please tweak away. -Thibbs (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

OK sorry to be annoying about this section, but I think it has implications for the "Titles" subsection that should be addressed. Under "Titles" we have a list of games "that have received press coverage". I take this to mean mainstream press coverage and not random blogs or academic sources. If so, then I suggest that we rename "Titles" to "Notable titles" and that we remove Lobster Liberation and Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes from the list so it starts with Super Chick Sisters - the first game to receive more mainstream press coverage. Does that sound good? -Thibbs (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

OK I just made the change. I think it makes the most sense this way: kind of like the "select discography" sections popular in WP:MUSICIAN articles. The history section covers the earlier less well-known games and if we later want to aim for completism then we can always add in all of the earlier games into the list and change the subsection from "notable titles" back to "titles". -Thibbs (talk) 18:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Works for me. Tezero (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK

I wanted to mention that I'd nominated this for DYK about a week ago and it looks like it's been accepted now. Keep watching the front page. -Thibbs (talk) 10:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Daily Mail is not a reliable source.

It is a British tabloid which has been decried as a reliable source many times. You should watch out. wirenote (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that in this case it's just a matter of providing attribution for an opinion statement. If it was a factual claim for which Daily Mail was being cited then that would fall on the wrong side of WP:RS, but I think the Daily Mail citation here may be ok per WP:RSOPINION. -Thibbs (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No exception exists in WP:RS for citing unreliable sources for their opinions; if there was, then every personal blog and website that expresses an opinion would be fair game to cite. Although unreliable sources can be used as sources about themselves, WP:SELFSOURCE forbids using unreliable sources to support "claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)" or to support "claims about events not directly related to the subject". –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That's not true; WP:VG/RS lists some sources that are only acceptable for opinions, like ScrewAttack. Nevertheless, I'm not gonna contest the Daily Mail if you really don't want it there. Tezero (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Video Games should have a discussion then, because those listings contradict what I just directly quoted from WP:SELFSOURCE, which is Wikipedia policy. But since Daily Mail has been removed, that's neither here nor there for this article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the salient point here is that the rationale underlying WP:SELFSOURCE is exactly the reason that WP:RSOPINION represents part of the RS content guideline (and not an exception to it). A third party statement regarding its own opinion is reliable as a source of information about itself because its opinion is its own. That doesn't mean that any source can be used simply because it has an opinion, but the reason to exclude an opinion source doesn't rest on reliability because there can really be no reasonable doubt that a published opinion differs from the true opinion of the publishing source. If a source is unreliable for factual matters but it is a contextually notable source then it's fine to be cited in a due manner and along with inline attribution for its opinions anyway. -Thibbs (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how your reasoning that "the reason to exclude an opinion source doesn't rest on reliability" can be squared with WP:SELFSOURCE's explicit command not to use unreliable sources to support "claims about third parties" or "claims about events not directly related to the subject." If WP:SELFSOURCE was intended to allow editors to use unreliable sources for their opinions on other outside persons or events, then it wouldn't say the exact opposite. And nothing in WP:RSOPINION suggests that unreliable sources may be used for their opinions of third parties or outside events. WP:RSOPINION does state that biased sources that have in-text attributions can be reliable, and that bias itself is not a reason to discount a source's reliability. But it doesn't say that the general reliability criteria for sources (reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, etc.) vanish when a source is used to support a statement of opinion. And according to WP:BIASED: "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." –Prototime (talk · contribs) 05:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

OK I think I understand your confusion. A published opinion does not represent a "claim about third parties" or indeed a "claims about events not directly related to the subject." A published opinion represents a claim about the publisher's views (i.e. a first party claim). I find hypothetical examples to be helpful so here's a brief illustration:

Original claim	Wikipedia claim	Analysis
"XYZ Corporation was founded in 1973"	"XYZ Corporation was founded in 1973"	This is a "claim about a third party". It requires an RS to support it.
"It's clear to us that XYZ Corporation has acted immorally"	"XYZ Corporation acted immorally"	This is a "claim about a third party". It requires an RS to support it. In this case it would have to be an RS within the field of morality.
"It's clear to us at ABC Source that XYZ Corporation has acted immorally"	"ABC Source believes that XYZ Corporation acted immorally"	This is a claim about a first party. Specifically it is a claim about what "ABC Source" believes and it is sourced by a direct statement from ABC Source itself. Reliability isn't an issue here because it is obvious that ABC Source is reliably reporting on its own opinion. The fact that the opinion relates to a third party is interesting, but not determinative here. Relevant issues include whether or not ABC Source's opinions are notable in this context and whether or not it is undue to report this claim.

I hope that makes more sense than my earlier explanation. -Thibbs (talk) 14:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

red white and blue

pokemon Red White and Blue is based on pokemon red and blue, not black and white

oops forgot to sign here it is Valehd (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)