Talk:The Sims 2: University/GA1

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: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 12:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating. I'm happy to address the Sims 2 expansion pages you have nominated, one at a time. At first glance there doesn't seem to be any major impediments to GA in the long run, but some work is needed. There are a few observations across the three articles that stand out in terms of providing feedback, mainly stylistic quirks, source choice and focus on trivia. I will put something together when I can. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for picking this one up, and I'm looking forward to seeing your comments! I've written a number of GAs, but video games are a little bit of a new area. Sourcing is a little tricky -- the mid-2000s have a lot of linkrot/half-digitized stuff/etc -- and there are some spots where I ended up with sources I'm not totally happy with to support things that "everyone knows, but not many people have bothered to mention" (e.g. the timeframe in which the EPs were released). Vaticidalprophet 12:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Starting now. I hope you don't mind if I approach this in blocks - there's a lot of ground to cover. This isn't a sign of a poor article - if anything it just means there's plenty of opportunities to make the article better than it is. I hope it doesn't come off as too full-on or negative, you've done great work so far! Also mindful I might be stating the obvious in places - only doing so as you said you haven't done a lot of video game articles. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, how's it going @Vaticidalprophet? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I might put the article as a fail as I note it hasn't been touched in over a month. This is not a problem at all and you are more than welcome to re-nominate when you have time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Criteria

Comments

General

• More information about the usual standards of video game articles can be found at WP:MOS/VG.

Background and development

• WP:DETAIL suggests that articles should be kept concise in summary style to focus on the subject matter, which is also an aspect of the GAN criteria. The first two paragraphs provide context for The Sims 2 and its expansions, which could adequately be addressed in the content of the primary article. The only relevant sentence is that the expansion was the first of eight released between 2005 and 2008.

• MOS:QUOTE suggests that quotations can be used to "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". I note the University, Nightlife and Open for Business pages each use a quote box to highlight an amusing quote you encountered in your research. My view is that these aren't necessary as they don't reinforce the core in the body of their section, give undue weight to the source, and have the tenor of drawing to attention an amusing or playful aside, which isn't really their purpose. I don't want to suck the fun out of editing, but I'm not sure if they're ideal.

Suggestions

• Shorten the use of information about the primary game to focus on the expansion as the primary subject matter.
• Reconsider the use of a quote template for quotes that do not add context to the body of the text.

Soundtrack

• This section is based upon paraphrasing one secondary source, which has the tenor of WP:UNDUE in making the soundtrack's significance seem more pivotal than it may be. It could be better to integrate this into the development section in shortened form.

Suggestions

• Reconsider the use of a discrete Soundtrack section.

Specific suggestions

• Robi Kauker - Remove the red wikilink

Reception and legacy

Contemporary reception

General comments

• Identifying independent and reliable sources requires the curation of which sources are more helpful to cite and quote in an overview of the subject matter, especially where many sources exist. WP:VG/S can be helpful to make calls on what sources are more reliable to include.

• If a video game has a large amount of review sources, a review score template is used to summarize the ratings. A good rule of thumb is that this should only really cover sources that have a shortened code as these tend to be the sources covered under WP:VG/S.

• Research to find online sources can be through review aggregators such as Metacritic and MobyGames, and print sources using the search function of the Internet Archive. Note that these do tend to capture reliable and unreliable sources, so a bit of sifting through is still necessary.

• Doing a bit of background research, my impression is that the key review sources for the expansion are: Computer Gaming World [1], Eurogamer [2], GameInformer [3], GamesRadar [4], GamePro [5], Game Revolution [6], GameSpot [7], GameSpy [8], GameZone [9], IGN [10], and PC Zone [11].

• You can see with the abundance of reliable sources above, that the other sources that are not reliable (Mygamer) or possibly reliable (Yahoo! Games, G4) do not need to play the role that they do when better sources exist to reinforce the points in the contemporary reviews section.

• More sources and less emphasis on individual comments in reviews from authors probably merits a slightly different approach to the review section. The manual of style describes this as "thematic" organization of review content by the key points they make signposted by lead sentences. At a brief glance, I assume these might be topics like the assessment of the new gameplay features, utility and style of the items/objects added to the game, and more conceptual remarks about the likeness of the expansion's representation of the college experience.

• You may like to demarcate Sales as a subsection of the Reception section as per WP:MOS/VG, given there is enough content there.

Suggestions

• Add in a review template with an expanded set of reliable sources.
• Focus the prose of the section on an overview of broader sources organized by theme, identified with lead sentences.
• Omit the use of less reliable sources where more reliable commentary is available.
• Consider adding in a Sales subsection.

Later reception

• The "later reception" probably needs an overhaul. Generally, sources such as Game Rant and Screen Rant fall under the category of "listicles that have little news or reporting significance" as per WP:VG/S. It can be tempting to include these sources to flesh out an article and include interesting trivia, but the section reads as a collection of sources that mention University after publication and not evidence of the game's "substantial impact" in later works or culture: see WP:MOS/VG.

Suggestions

• Reconsider the content in the section if it concerns trivia or minor references that do not suggest the game's impact in later works or culture.
• Omit the use of less reliable sources where more reliable commentary is available.

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.