Talk:Lego Bionicle: The Legend of Mata Nui

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lego Bionicle: The Legend of Mata Nui/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 11:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


I think I'll take this one on. It's unusual to say the least, and looks like a fascinating read. If I haven't left anything by Sunday, please ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quick drive-by comment: this article relies heavily on Did You Know Gaming, which from a cursory glance seems nowhere near reliable, Would definitely try and find better sources on this. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 20:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s reliable, but especially in this context. It’s an in-depth video on the game that is the most extensive coverage available. As a journalist (BS Journalism, App State 2018), I found it to be an excellent piece of gaming journalism. Liam Robertson of DYKG is one of the people who actually uncovered the game’s development builds, so this was substantial journalistic legwork here.
As for usage, many of the citations that are used from the video here are an analysis of the game’s features, levels, plot, and bugs (as demonstrated in the opening two sections). As commentary, I think it certainly passes the standard, and aside from being accurate, no other sources covers the gameplay so comprehensively. I think the gameplay element sections, at minimum, are useful to the reader and are accurate and reliable.
The video’s fact-based claims come mainly from interviews with the game’s development team (primarily Darvell Hunt, along with other unnamed sources from Saffire). There are ten usages of DYKG outside of the early gameplay and story sections:
  1. The first usage, paired with citation 3, is that LEGO heavily promoted the game.
  2. The second usage is that the game was promoted in Cheerios cereal, on the BIONICLE website, and an exclusive mask was to be bundled.
  3. The third usage is a date the game began development.
  4. The fourth and fifth usages are coverage of the Maori scandal; other sources cover this area as well.
  5. The sixth usage is a direct claim made by Darvell Hunt (that he developed gameplay mechanic that Lego demanded the removal of)
  6. The seventh usage is again paired with citation 3, about working conditions.
  7. The eighth usage is from unnamed sources at Saffire that gave the real reason the game was cancelled.
  8. The ninth usage is a mention of a missing gameplay feature (the final boss).
  9. The tenth is a brief summary on the demise of Saffire
Of these, only a handful are claims of fact that Robertson makes without any corroboration - those would be 2, 3, 8, and 10. For what it is being used for here (primary an analysis of gameplay and functions, along with some development facts that come directly from people involved in the game’s development), I think it’s a sufficient and valuable resource. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this. My issue with DYKG is that a large chunk of its content is user-submitted (which is an automatic red flag), and that there appears to be no actual staff whatsoever, which pretty much makes it fail WP:RELIABLE if you ask me. Is there any sort of developer interview out there with the team? I think that would be a lot more useful than a random YouTube video on the subject in question. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are conflating the blog and the YouTube channel, which are effectively two separate entities. This video is not user-submitted in any way. It's the singular work a single author, Liam Robertson, that is published on the channel - but it's his video and his work. Rather than a random video, it's a work from someone with an actual history in game reporting. In fact, a previous discussion in WikiProject Video Games noted his credibility in the field of cancelled video games. It's all there in the thread, but Robertson is noted for his work on Nintendo Life (a reliable source). His track record in cancelled and unfinished video games is very strong. Here's some other sources that vouch for him:
  1. ComicBook.com says that he is "known for having scoops and reporting on them reliably in the past". ComicBook.com
  2. RedBull Games, a reliable source, notes him as "extremely informative" and mentions his "independent reports on unreleased games" and his "tremendous access to insider info".
  3. Eurogamer, a reliable source, favorably cited his video on the cancelled game Gnomageddon as an authoritative source on the subject.
  4. Digital Trends, a reliable source, noted him as having a strong track record in being accurate.
  5. IGN, a highly reliable source, also cites his work on this subject favorably and authoritatively.
  6. On Sonic Extreme, a good article that passed just last year, his work is cited authoritatively by IGN and Digital Trends; these two reliable sources, at minimum, find multiple of his videos on the subject authoritative.
  7. Kotaku, a reliable source, credits his work as authoritative on both Superman and BIONICLE.
  8. GameInformer, a reliable source, cites his work authoritatively.
I can find more citations if needed, but it is abundantly clear - at least to me - that Liam Robertson is clearly a reliable source and industry insider, especially so on the topic of unreleased games and Nintendo in general - this game qualifies as both. Toa Nidhiki05 00:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Toa Nidhiki05: This review's become interesting. As such, I think I'll give the rough equivalent of a narrative verdict. Looking at it, and at the evidence you've presented as to the reliability of the journalist cited by Did You Know Gaming?, and the unusual circumstances surrounding this game, there is a strong case for passing this. I believe that Namcokid47 had valid concerns, your answers have been quite satisfactory. I've looked through the article, and don't see any glaring grammar or spelling errors, and the citations are all in order (and while I've never been very comfortable with subscription-based citations, they're acceptable and I've had to use one once myself for the article Gravity Rush). While I'm sure others will feel differently about this and may want the article reassessing, at this point I don't think there's any reason not to pass this. It's an interesting read, and a historic curiosity with sourcing issues unique to its situation and cult status, so your source usage is reasonable given that the channel has some provenance and the insider source is trusted. I give this article a Pass. Congrats on what must've been a challenging project. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 13:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article was promoted to good article status in time, and meets general DYK article requirements. No close paraphrasing was found apart from quotes from sources, and a QPQ has been done. Of the hooks proposed, the first probably appeals the most to a broad audience and probably gives the most justice to the fate of the game. The main concern that is preventing me from giving me the tick is that the sentence that discusses the hook fact (about the independent studio), which goes To develop and release a completed version of the game, The Beaverhouse created Litestone Studios, an independent game studio is referenced to IGN, but the IGN link does not mention Litestone or the studio explicitly: instead, the information is actually in Quillstreak reference (i.e. the footnote should be reference #3 instead of #1). The Quillstreak also seems to be inconsistent with Litestone's name in comparison to the article: is it Team Litestone, or is it Litestone Studios? Overall, a very interesting article and a very interesting hook, and the nomination should be good to go once these minor issues have been addressed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation error is fixed now; IGN should have been used for the sentence above it, not the one cited, which was an oversight on my part. As for the name, the studio itself is Litestone Studios (as evidenced from their YouTube and social media presence). My guess would be that Team Litestone refers to the actual dev team itself (which happens to comprise the entirety of the studio). Toa Nidhiki05 01:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. There are no more issues so this should be good to go now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: How about a shortened version of ALT0?
ALT0a ... that after development builds of the cancelled video game Lego Bionicle: The Legend of Mata Nui leaked online, Bionicle fans created a video game development studio to complete the game?
This version is 186 characters long and trims some of the detail while keeping the main facts. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me!
@Yoninah: Since I proposed ALT0a, it will need to be reviewed by another user. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? You just trimmed the nominator's hook. Restoring your review tick for ALT0a. Yoninah (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lego_Bionicle:_The_Legend_of_Mata_Nui&oldid=1222482748"