Talk:PETA satirical browser games/GA1

GA Review

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

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)