Talk:Overwatch and pornography/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, technically Undertale seems to be more prominent nowadays, no? ;-D JAGUAR  14:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Initial comments

• "The game's distinct and colorful character designs grabbed the attention" - I think 'grabbed' sounds a little informal, try attracted or drew?
• "Character models were ripped from the beta versions of the game" - link ripping
• I think a mention of Rule 34 (Internet meme) in the lead would benefit the summarising of the article. The website itself is mentioned in a couple of sources
• "inspired by basically all high-profile video game franchises" - sounds a tad informal. It wouldn't hurt removing "basically" and "all", but you could use a synonym if you like
• "during which time various people ripped the character models of Overwatch" - link ripping for clarification
• "The character Tracer was by far the most commonly searched Overwatch-related subject during this time, followed by Widowmaker and Mercy" - where in source 3 does it say that Widowmaker and Mercy are behind Tracer for the most searched characters? I chose source 3 as it's the only given source which mentions them
• " such as showing pro gamer D.Va masturbating while streaming" - the character is a pro gamer?
• "Aoife Wilson of Eurogamer commented upon the pornographic content available on the Internet saying that some of the videos are of surprisingly high quality" - might sound better as Commenting upon the pornographic content available on the Internet, Aoife Wilson of Eurogamer said that some of the videos are of surprisingly high quality...
• "Jeff Kaplan stated that as someone who's "creatively responsible" for the franchise" - who is
• "Prolific video game porn developer Studio FOW stated that it wouldn't create Overwatch pornography" - would not
• No dead links

This article is of good quality and is close to meeting the GA criteria IMO. I checked all of the sources and they're all good, as well as the prose. On hold until all are clarified! JAGUAR  14:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I implemented all suggestions you gave. These are really good comments. I hope the manner in which I implemented "rule 34" in the lead section is appropriate? And yes, D.Va is a former pro gamer according to the source. This is also described in her article. As for the VentureBeat source not mentioning Widowmaker's and Mercy's popularity, it seems like you somehow got the incorrect link. this is source 3. ~Mable (chat) 17:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! I'm ready to promote this but not sure if it's best to wait if after the merger discussion has been closed, per BlueMoonset. It looks ripe for closure and should be kept now. JAGUAR  14:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Other comments

I think it is a very bad idea for this to proceed until the the merger discussion is closed one way or the other. I would strongly recommend that this be put on hold while a closure request is made at the appropriate noticeboard. The discussion was opened in good faith, and in good faith it ought to be completed before this review continues. (DYK, which is a less rigorous vetting process, always waits for AfD or Merger discussions to be completed before allowing final approval.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

That is fair. To be honest, I am just happy to bring it one step closer. I think it also shows that, yes, I am serious about this article. It feels like many people in the merger discussion just see the article as a big joke... Thank you for literally doing the review the same day as I nominated it, that is very kind. ~Mable (chat) 17:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason not to promote this, so here we go. JAGUAR  11:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

There is an ongoing merge discussion which looks like it leans strongly towards merging. one of the criteria for a good article is stability: "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". Do you not think that these things may be in conflict? Echoing BlueMoonset's comments above, I feel that this review should have waited out the result of the merge discussion or alternative should have been closed. Passing in these circumstances seems inappropriate. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, WP:GA? states:

Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply to the "stable" criterion.

~Mable (chat) 12:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think you're right, so I reverted my change and have placed it on hold again. It's just that I thought the discussion was put off and would be on hold for much longer, as it's been active on and off since June. I didn't like the idea of leaving this review on hold indefinitely unless the merger discussion reaches a verdict, which it hopefully should soon. I'll re-revert my edit if things change. JAGUAR  12:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with BlueMoonset and J Milburn. The merger needs to be closed before the article is promoted. I've undone the addition of the good article template to the article. -- ferret (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jaguar: If you don't want to leave the review open, not that I personally see any problem with leaving a review open long term, I think closing it without promoting (generally referred to, somewhat unfortunately, as "failing") would be a possibility. The article can always be renominated. @Maplestrip: I confess I am surprised to see that. I take it to mean that we don't need to rush to good article reassessment every time someone proposes a merge or there is a disagreement about wording. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that we can take that line to mean that we should have no qualms about promoting an article which, due to an ongoing discussion, may not (probably won't?) exist in a few weeks' time. Perhaps it is worth raising a query about that part of the instructions; I can't envisage there being a consensus to say that promoting in this kind of case is appropriate (as the comments in this thread could be said to illustrate). Josh Milburn (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm fine with waiting until the merge discussion is closed. I'm just 1) happy that this is ready and 2) I hope that this might quicken that process a bit. It is a tad frustrating when an article that you consider to be of GA quality is stuck in a merger discussion for months. ~Mable (chat) 18:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So the article got merged into the main Overwatch page. I suggest this nomination should be closed now. GamerPro64 13:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll close this now. Sorry to hear the outcome, but I hope Mable knows this would have passed! JAGUAR  14:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all the nice comments :) I really tried to get this topic to stand on its own, but it's too bad to see that I failed. Maybe if the sources keep coming, we'll be back here next year, but we'll see what the future brings. ~Mable (chat) 14:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)