Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ogre (board game)/1
Ogre (board game) edit
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: delisted (t · c) buidhe 09:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I am opening a community GAR on this article due to that from my perspective it does not meet the Good Article criteria in the following:
1. Well written- This article in my opinion does not satisfy the requirements according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The article is split into eight main sections, but numerous sections are too short or superficial for it to fully satisfy The Manual of Style which states that 'Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose.' However, in this article two sections (Awards and Other Reviews) are exceedingly short with the first comprising of only a single sentence whereas the latter only lists a single outdated example in dot point form. The prose is also severely lacking for the section 'Spin-offs', which includes numerous subheadings, but most of them are especially superficial with a single example given. Similarly, numerous other sections, such as 'Game Description' and 'Publication History', also comprise paragraphs also only consisting of one single sentence. Consider those lines under the 'Publication History':
'In May 2012, a new Designer's Edition of Ogre was funded on Kickstarter.com.
In late 2018, SJG ran a Kickstarter for Ogre Battlefields, an update and expansion for both the Designer's Edition and the Sixth Edition.
In 2020, SJG released a updated pocketbox version of Ogre with a 16-page manual and 112 counters, along with updated pocket box versions of G.E.V., Battlesuit, and Shockwave.
In 2021, as part of a Kickstarter campaign, SJG released 1976 Ogre Playtest Booklet, a reproduction of the original typewritten playtest set for the first version of Ogre.'
In my opinion, those do not seem to comply with the Manual of Style, which recommends paragraphs with suitable prose. The article also has numerous grammatical errors, such as 'In 2020, SJG released a updated' where 'an updated' should be utilised instead.
2. Verifiable with no original research- most sections of the GA has pertinent referencing. However, various sections, including the lead paragraph (which should be 'carefully sourced' based on its Wikipedia page entry) as well as the 'Other Reviews' does not consist of any sourcing and might possibly indicate original research, which I believe also does not satisfy the GA criteria.
6. Illustrated- the article only provides two images, and does not show any standard edition of the game; only a deluxe edition image is included along with the cover. This seems fairly lacking in my opinion, especially considering that the inclusion of images in the section 'Game description' would have benefitted from my perspective.
Based on my quick check, I believe that it does not meet at least three criteria, the others (criteria 3, 4 and 5) being weak passes. However, I am a very new Wikipedia editor and hence believe that this article would require a community GA assessment considering its overall quality and that the last GA approval is in 2008, during which the standards would likely be different. Please let me know for any questions and I appreciate sincerely your feedback- VickKiang (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC).
Note: I also added noteworthy sections of the article requiring clean-ups from my perspective, including expansion for sections 'Awards' and 'Other Reviews' as well as changing list to prose as a suggestion for the 'Spin-offs'.
- I concur with your assessment, this is C-class, I'd not pass it for B-class due to the issues identified. Only exception is the images - copyright issues make illustrating such topics difficult, although arguably fair use could be involved sometimes. Note the original GA status dates to 2008 (Talk:Ogre_(board_game)#GA_on_Hold), our standards have improved since and the article is not meeting the modern era GA ones, even if it might have been GA level back then. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, despite some substantial improvements recorded in the new edits, this article seems inferior in quality compared not just to GA articles, but in contrast to most B- grade articles. If anyone else can respond that would be great- VickKiang (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC).