Talk:Play-by-mail game/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 09:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll take this one. If there is no action after three or four days, feel free to nudge me. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate your review Gog the Mild!

• Chapman and Wieck are both in the bibliography, but not used to cite anything.

Chapman is reference 63. Airborne84 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Either change the cite date to "Winter 1983", or Chapman's date to "1983".

Didn't realize the reference had no ref tag in the Bibliography so the inline citation wasn't linking to it. I added the ref tag and the citations now link to it. Does that work?

Yep.

As I recall, I added Wieck because I thought it was an important early 1990s list of players and games of the period and potentially useful to a reader. I would have included it as an external link, but it's not a webpage. I'd like to keep it. If it must be used in an inline citation to retain in the Bibliography, please advise and I'll find somewhere to use. Airborne84 (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the bibliography is a list of works cited in the article.

No problem. Deleted. I'll use it later or elsewhere if appropriate. Airborne84 (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

In extremis add it to "Further reading".

• "The name changed to Nuts & Bolts of Gaming[79] and it eventually went out of print." The last seven words need a cite.

Thanks. I checked the source and it accounts for the entire sentence. Adjusted/fixed. Airborne84 (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• "turn-based game". Really? Most TBGs are not PBMs.

Addressed below, Gog the Mild.

• "Gaming Universal, Paper Mayhem and Flagship magazine". Should "magazine" be plaural?

Singular since it modified Flagship, but I removed "magazine" since magazine isn't in the title. Less confusing.

• "becoming known as "turn-based games" in the digital age". Really? This would mean that if I played chess with you face to face it would not be a TBG!

I certainly see your point. In this case I'm just reporting what the sources say to be comprehensive. Not passing judgment. Two PBM magazines (Flagship and Suspense & Decision) and multiple PBM publishers use turn-based gaming now in place of PBM or PBEM. I put in this external link from Talisman Games which still publishes Galac-Tac (appearing on tomorrow's DYK by the way). Here's also a link from Madhouse UK which publishes DungeonWorld and others. They claim to be the "world’s leading turn-based gaming" company and assert that turn-based gaming was "previously known as PBM, or PBEM". Again, not taking a position—just reporting on what "PBM" sources are saying today. I'm happy to make an adjustment if you think a clarification would be useful though. Airborne84 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Well obviously PBMs are TBGs. But there seems to be a suggestion that PBM encompasses all TBGs. Rereading closely you just about stay on the right side of this, and it is only GAN, so fine.

I agree in the future this article will have to be clear that PBMs are only a subset of TBGs, not the other way around.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Diplomacy is an early example of this type, emerging in 1963 ... Diplomacy was first played by mail in 1963." Repetition.

Removed second iteration.

• "entered the field in "roughly" 1976". Why the quotes?

Removed.

• "and the ability to abuse game systems". How is playing by the rules "abuse"? Do any sources describe it as such?

The cited source, Jim Townsend, appeared to describe it as such for two reasons: (1) due to Schubel and Son's fee for being attacked which allowed the "concept of account bashing where you [could] launch many small attacks at another player in hopes of forcing him out of the game because he cannot continue to pay the bills", and (2) special actions where a player could "attempt something outside the game rules (like trying to salvage a sunken ship in a contemporary wargame) for a certain price". In the latter case, because there were no limits on these special actions, Townsend said "it led to abuses of the game", also noting the bank[roll] attack issue. Rick Loomis, in one of the Flying Buffalo Quarterly newsletters also commented about this, although Townsend is a better source, I think, given that Loomis, even given his stature, was a competitor.

Mmm. How would you feel about paraphrasing this to 'the ability to game the system.' (Instead of "the ability to abuse game systems.")?

No issues. Changed.

• "The next "big entrance" was Superior Simulations". Again, why the quotes. Suggest removing them and "entrance" → 'entrant'.

Done.

• "The PBM genre's "two preeminent magazines" of the period were Flagship and Paper Mayhem.[19] Also in the mid-1980s, "general gaming magazines" began carrying articles ..." Quote marks again.

Quotes removed.

• "typically occurred within respective countries"? Do you mean within single countries?

Yes, and that's better wording, so I went with that. Changed.

• "A smaller PBM community exists as of the 2010s". But this is no longer the 2010s.

Was trying to reflect the source publication date. Would it be appropriate to simply say "A smaller PBM community exists today."?

Given that the source date is 2014, I think it a stretch to call that 'today'. Maybe, 'By 2014 the PBM community had shrunk' or similar?

Adjusted similar to your recommendation.

• "Flagship Magazine"; "Flagship". Which?

Went with Flagship. Fixed throughout. Thanks.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Changes made, Gog the Mild. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• "the lack of face-to-face roleplaying". Consider "roleplaying" → 'interaction'?

Changed. I like it.

• "but the average price per turn [in 1993] is about $5.00." Delete "[in 1993]", you have already said that the quote comes from 1993.

Deleted.

• "with 3–7 as the average". Spell out the numbers to be consistent.

Spelled out.

• "Rick Loomis's PBM Games' nine games". Optional: This is a complex formulation. Any way it could be rendered a bit more digestible?

I think it reads better now. Note: I removed the 's from the end of Loomis as "Rick Loomis PBM Games" is the complete name of the company. I added a (red) Wikilink so it's apparent to readers. If that doesn't make sense, please advise.

• "100 percent". Either '100%' or 'one hundred percent', not a mix.

One hundred percent fixed.

• "Cost and turn processing time": this seems to cover 1986. Is there no information available on what these are now?

The best way to cover this now is to outline how diverse turn processing times are today. E.g., PBEM and web-based inputs and computer moderation can enable daily or probably even hourly turnaround times, while some companies retain mail-based options to allow military or players in prison to play. I'll work on this. I have not seen secondary source cost comparisons to those from decades ago. Although publishers have noted their costs in some ads and articles in the last decade, I think it would probably be OR to compare.

• The article seems to cover the US and UK well, but - bar one passing reference to Australia - not mention the rest of the world. Did PB[E]M not take place there?

Related to PBM companies, it seems the answer is largely "yes". I added another sentence to supplement the one you mentioned: "Sam Roads of Harlequin Games similarly assessed the state of the PBM industry in the early days while also noting the existence of a few non-English companies."[19] I also canvassed a number of Flagship magazines from the 2000s and this dynamic apparently did not change much. Flagship provides PBM gaming company lists in the back of their issues, and some of their later issues identify a few German and French companies (and games). I could capture that if you think it appropriate without a secondary source. E.g., "In 2009, Flagship listed several German and French PBM publishers (five of ninety-four)" or something along those lines. (I made those numbers up as generally representative without counting.)

I added a sentence with footnote. Airborne84 (talk) 03:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

• Notes d and h have a lot of duplication.

I have made a minor tweak to your additional sentence, see what you think. Yes, an additional sentence along the lines you outline would be fine.

Note d deleted.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Lovely work that took me back a couple of decades. Happy to promote. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Greatly appreciate the thorough review Gog the Mild! Airborne84 (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed