Talk:Martha Is Dead

Video games Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (0 participants)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (2 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (3 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (8 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Proposed merge of Draft:Martha is Dead into Martha is Dead

Draft is more detailed than article, and should be folded into article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: seems it has already been done, though I am not sure how well. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Curb Safe Charmer - Yes. It appears that the author of the draft copied most of the contents of the draft into the article at the same time as I was tagging the pages for merge, which was a race condition. I will change the tags to ask for a check of the merge.

This was an unusual case where two versions were developed independently, one in article space and one in draft space, and the version in draft space was more complete. Usually when there are both an article and a draft, they have common history; in this case, they did not, just two editors writing about the same game. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

This game was the subject of a draft and a mainspace article, and the draft was more detailed. The draft has been merged into the article. A third-person review would be desirable to verify that the merging has been done appropriately. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I just wanted to give my thoughts on the current quality of this article. Taking into account that the greater length of a draft over the original article is one reason for a merger, and while efforts can obviously be made to improve the article afterwards, are drafts ever typically reviewed before merging, because in this case so much of the prose in this article is unnecessary, poorly-sourced (or using questionable sources), and often violates WP:NPOV, typically through puffery. To break this down, the most glaring issues are:

Development is wholly excessive and split into several subsections where only one is really necessary. If possible, the prose detailing comparisons with The Town of Light and an overview of Martha Is Dead's graphics should be relegated to a few sentences at most. "Content" is closely tied with gameplay, so should fall under that respective section.
The game's characters are described in great detail with their own subsections. If they do have to be outlined, this should only ever be under a section detailing the setting of the game.
Reception is disorganised and suffers from various problems. As a brief overview, random summarised reviews are directly attributed to IGN, Metacritic, Steam (WP:USERG), and OpenCritic, and a host of awards are listed that are mostly from non-notable awarding bodies and ceremonies.
The end of the article (errenously titled "Impact") has another unnecessary section discussing the game's themes that is essentially completely unsourced. Again, if it can be sourced, this should should only have a brief mention, either under Gameplay or Development.

While I don't wish to disregard the efforts of the user who I imagine spent considerable time creating the draft, ultimately there is a lot to it that I don't think should remain, and alternatively contains details that might be a struggle to reliably source. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Robert McClenon: as not sure if the first went through. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A large portion of the current content needs to be outright deleted for being either unencyclopedic levels of plot summary, improper tone, WP:SYNTH, or WP:PROMO. I wouldn't hesitate to just delete whatever is causing problems to immediately triage the article, then look to see if anything can be re-integrated. The Characters, Impact and every Development section besides "Origins" should be canned, and it lists too many awards. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:09, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It see it was reverted back to its original state, which also makes sense. Any parts of the draft that may have been salvageable should be very selectively integrated back, if any. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:29, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I earlier raised the issue over at WT:VG. When I have a spare moment I'll see if there was anything that might be considered acceptable, but I don't think it'll amount to much. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]