Overall, while this article is competently written, I don't think it meets GA criteria at present.
The main issue I see is with criterion 3. The article has all the relevant sections needed for a sufficiently broad coverage of the topic, but the reception section is sorely lacking. We've basically only got four sources' worth of coverage; I don't think the 1MoreCastle ref meets
reliable source requirements, and certainly can't be used to justify the statement that they're among the best villains in gaming alone.
Prose is decent enough for GA standards.
Spot-checked refs attributed to
current refs 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 17, 20, and 23.
I would recommend putting timecode for specific callouts for ref 1, the video postmortem, so it is easier to verify, along with/or with direct quotations.
This bit The Ur-Quan eventually freed themselves, and formed a galactic empire of their own. The green Ur-Quan were renamed the Ur-Quan Kzer-Za in honor of the Ur-Quan scientist who freed them all. is not adequately cited by ref 5.
The details about the Precursor battleship are not adequately cited by
ref 9
As mentioned, I don't think the 1MoreCastle ref meets reliable source standards.
Citations missing fields like access date; I would recommend archiving them to avoid
linkrot.
Thanks for the review so far. Most of those issues are pretty easy to address and I ask a little patience as I work through them. I see your point about the reception section. I tried to focus on quality over quantity -- four sources proclaiming them as one of the best races -- but there's a lot of smaller praise for them as well. I'll chip away at all of this over the next few days and get back to you.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
03:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)reply
I took a shot at cleaning up the references and making them more readable. I also started to add some of the stronger stuff to the reception, where journalists are very specific about how important they are, particularly
this. I still want to do some link-maintenance to avoid link rot. I have also found a lot more reception, but this is where it becomes a matter of style.
I've seen really short GAs like
Covenant (Halo). I've also seen GA characters like
Celes Chere or
Ayla (Chrono Trigger) or even
Zero_(Mega_Man). In all cases, they all have some of the high quality "best of" lists and more detailed explanations of why they're notable. But the latter also has mishmashes of passing mentions, long descriptions of plot, or general statements about the writing with the character cited as an example. I've avoided the latter, focusing on quality-over-quantity for the reception section (like "a rare design achievement" or "better than any character that came after"). I realize I might be too strict, and a lot of readers might benefit from seeing journalists briefly mention a character as an element of great story/characterization/music. Plus this is an older series from before the era of internet journalism and top ten lists, so for a journalist to comment on characterization at all is itself pretty noteworthy.
I went ahead and addressed all of your points. The
current version should have access dates, time codes for the long video, and improved citations for the "Background" section. I also added new sources to the reception, focusing on both the quality of the source and the quality of the coverage. You'll see the reception section is expanded, with new sources and more detail. If this one is close to GA quality, I would simply call it here,
WP:IGNORE the additional sources and analysis below, and I'd be happy to iron out the last few kinks.
[25] - CON: already cited / PRO: adds more detail about a different noteworthy design aspect
[26] - CON: somewhat
WP:SYNTHy / PRO: new cite to a good source from an older era of journalism
[27] - CON: short / PRO: another reliable source from the olden days
[28] - CON: short / PRO: new cite to a very reputable source with valuable historical context
[29] - CON: short, same publication as [28] / PRO: elaborates on the last point
[34] - CON: same publication as [33] and [32] / PRO: adds more detail about what made the design noteworthy
[12][c] - CON: already cited / PRO: adds more detail about a different noteworthy design aspect
[35] - CON: Dickinson Press is reliable but very local / PRO: reliable and useful reception
[36] - CON: found this on google scholar. I don't get why people cite these. / PRO:
WP:YMMV
[37] - CON: short / PRO: new cite to a good source with high praise
[45] - CON: they play a minor role in Star Control 3 / PRO: they made some impression
[46] - CON: short, minor role in Star Control 3 / PRO: it's something
As you can see, the longer (self-reverted) version has 46 sources, versus only 35 sources for the shorter (current) version. Like I said, I would err towards the current 35 source version as quality over quantity, which is still expanded from where we were a week ago. If we're up to standard, we can
WP:IGNORE the rest of those sources in the edit history, and save yourself some effort.
That said, I can put in more effort if you can. I'd just need to know how many references we still need to cross the GA line. I don't mind working at this if you'd be gracious enough to give me more time and direction. I figure we can select the refs, and then I can spend time cleaning up the prose, particularly for
WP:QUOTEFARM.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
22:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Checking in with
User:David Fuchs. No hurry and I know this talk page is getting long. Don't mind waiting and don't mind getting a third opinion if it eases the burden. Still have the time and energy to bring this up to standard.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
14:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Remaining issue: what makes 1MoreCastle and PikiGeek a reliable source?
Ref 35 is missing a title (it looks like the publication name was repeated.)
As for those two sources, PikiGeek was a Pennsylvania-based site owned by Pikimal, and it
appears to have editorial oversight when it was around, and the author is Chris Ullery who now works with the
The Intelligencer in Pennsylvania, which has a good pedigree. I think that gets us onto
WP:RS. If we want to be cautious, the author is verifying a fact-based comparison that passes the
verifiability standard, as opposed to a squishier statement like a "best ever" opinion. There's some precedent for that more cautious single-purpose approach according to this
old discussion from when the site was still around. At the very least, this fact is pretty easy to verify and I think this source is reliable enough for this purpose.
1MoreCastle
also appears to have editorial oversight. It's probably less important now that there's at least one other source that establishes the same thing, and that the statement is really an intro sentence that establishes what other journalists say in later sentences. I know you said it might not alone establish that they're among the greatest game villains of all time, which is why it's double referenced. Perhaps the double reference helps support it sticking around, or perhaps it makes it redundant. I see ho harm in keeping it or removing it at this point, so you can tell me what feels most appropriate.
If the facts are easy to verify, they should be replaced with better sourcing. You can't really add a bunch of unreliable sources together and say that they combine to equal a reliable one.
Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk20:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)reply
I respect that and if push comes to shove we can just remove it. When I referred to it being easily verified, I was talking about something that could be
observed in the primary material, as opposed to an opinion ("the greatest", etc.). Because this is a game from such an old time, sources are going to be obscure, including defunct sites like PikiGeek. Since there is some evidence of editorial oversight at PikiGeek, I started a discussion
here to get more feedback. I do respect Wikipedia standards and we can ultimately remove this one statement if it still feels off.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
18:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)reply
So I'm still open about what to do here and I want to respect your time. Based on the discussion at the WikiProject talk page, people seem to support (or at least consent to) keeping the Pikimal/PikiGeek source here. I do wish more people chimed in on that discussion, but there is evidence of editorial oversight. I'm willing to hear you out on what your objection is to the source. I'm willing to be more cautious with the phrasing. We could get yet
another opinion. Whatever moves this process forward.
Shooterwalker (
talk)
00:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)reply