Talk:Space Marshals

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Marshals/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 01:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be reviewing the article. It looks in good shape but there are some things that seem like issues:

• The lead has several references. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations. If what is written in the lead will be repeated in the body, then I would recommend removing the references unless you are adding controversial information which many users might change.
  •  Done Omni Flames (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• The development section uses two citations for most sentences. Are all needed?
  •  Done (mostly). I've kept some where I feel that two references is still helpful. Omni Flames (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Reception: I recommend rewritting the first sentence to "The game received mostly positive reviews from critics, having a score of 82 out of 100 in Metacritic"
  •  Done Omni Flames (talk) 03:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Could you also give credit to the critics in the Reception like saying "IGN's reviewer praised." This might help expand the paragraphs which seem a little small.
  •  Done Omni Flames (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• Time is a magazine so I think it should be given italics.
  •  Done Omni Flames (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
• The review box could be expanded to notice the other websites reviewing the article like Touch arcade with " | agg1 = | agg1Score = " (See Template:Video game reviews#Single-Platform/Column layout.
  •  Done Omni Flames (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyways, the article looks in good shape. I'll happily pass it after seeing if you fix the issues.Tintor2 (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Thanks for the review. I've fixed all the errors you brought up. Omni Flames (talk) 04:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Good job. Passed the article.Tintor2 (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

@Tintor2 and Omni Flames: Hello, I'm not entirely sure this is up to GA standard. For starters, here's a summary of the references:

1. PixelBite isn't listed on WP:VG/S, and taking a quick look at it, it doesn't seem like it's too reliable.
2. Pocket Tactics is in the same boat, although looking at the about us page shows some promise.
3. Appzine is possibly unreliable. I can't find their about us page.
4. The iClarified reference should probably be replaced with something more reliable
5. Gamer.nl has been debated a few times and there doesn't seem to be a sound consensus surrounding this website.
6. Ref11 is a primary source, which could probably slide due to it being used in the development section, but a better reference would be better.
7. Ref18 is a primary source, can this be replaced?
8. Mutliplayer.it isn't reliable.
9. iPad Insight is a blog and is probably unreliable.
10. Not entirely sure on Redmond Pie.

Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ouch. I don't know much as video games reliable sources, so I don't think if I can help.Tintor2 (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte, contrary to what you seem to imply here, just because a source isn't listed at WP:VG/S doesn't mean it's unreliable. I don't have time to go through this list in depth right now, so I'll be sure to look at them when I get home. However, just from a quick look, I can address the first point. You might not have realized this, but PixelBite is the developer of the game, so obviously their website is reliable as a primary source. As for your points about ref11 and ref18: nowhere in the GA criteria does it state that there can't be any primary sources in the article, so this is irrelevant. Omni Flames (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: I didn't say that if they're not on WP:VG/S they're immediately unreliable, there are a few references that aren't listed on WP:VG/S that are reliable, but if it's been vetted by the community and been listed as unreliable, the policy states to try not to use them. PixelBite was my mistake and I've since crossed it off the list. Primary sources are fine, although it'd be better if secondary sources covered the subject too. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

There are also a few parts of the article that could use a WP:GOCE copyedit. I'll list this as reassessment for more input; I could be entirely wrong about this. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Space Marshals

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: This nomination has been up since August and there appears to be issues that have not been addressed during this time. I am delisting the article. GamerPro64 18:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Notified: Tintor2, Omni Flames, WikiProject Video Games

I believe this does not fall under the GA criteria per the comments I've left at Talk:Space Marshals#GA Reassessment. Primarily, the references just aren't up to par. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I've removed all of the sources you listed that were unreliable, except iPad Insight and Pocket Tactics, just because both of their about us pages look good [1][2]. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. Omni Flames (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for that, Omni Flames. I still have a few doubts about iClarified and Gamer.nl. I can't find their about us page for either of them. iClarified posted the article in this article under the name of "iClarified" so I can't search for the writer's name either. As for Gamer.nl, there's a language barrier stopping me from properly analysing the site. iPad Insight seems like an enthusiast site, with sentences like "other avid iPad users and reviewers" being present in the about us page. I'd also like to see a copyedit, if possible. Let's leave it open for a couple of days so that we can receive opinions from other editors. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: I'll take a more in-depth look at those sources in the next couple of days and see whether I think they're reliable or not. As for copyediting, I've left a request at WP:GOCE/R. Omni Flames (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• It should be easy enough to expand the Reception from the current sources—needs more depth  czar 14:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Anarchyte, what is your current assessment of the article after the work by Omni Flames last August and the subsequent copyedit by GOCE? This has been sitting moribund for four months, and it's time to get it moving again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: My apologies for the late reply, I've been busy IRL so I couldn't really devote time to look at this. My primary concern still stands, though. Many of the references in this article fail WP:RS, let-alone GA standard. It's also a tad bland; I've read through it again and although it's now worded a lot better, I feel like it just doesn't contain enough information to be of GA standard, even with the unreliable sources included. My position still stands, but it's up to the closer. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I got rid of the one source, I agree it is dubious. I believe the dutch source is fine, I translated the About Us page and all seems well. http://gamer.nl/colofon/

Let me know if you disagree. What else do you specifically want fixed? Kees08 (talk) 06:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte, Omni Flames, and BlueMoonset: Does anyone have anything else they think needs improved? If so, list it below and I can address it, otherwise let's pass it for GA. Kees08 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I still think it's a bit short. Also, some sections heavily rely on primary sources. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Length is not a criterion for GA. I'll work on the primary sources aspect. Kees08 (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Changed two of the citations, left two. I think those two are fine as primary sources (some background information on the main character, and the announcement of the next release). Kees08 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but being broad in its coverage is. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

See The1337gamer's comment for the proper way to say how it isn't broad in coverage. I will be working on his comments. Kees08 (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Now that I have more time on my hands, here are a few things I think could be improved.

• Synopsis feels a bit bare. Here are a few ideas:

• The game is set in the "Wild West", and the player is tasked with bringing criminals to justice. Why? What did the criminals do? Also, I think the first and second sentence could be merged.
• Characterized as "arrogant", Burt is a former space. Having the "" implies that it comes from elsewhere, IMO the "characterized" could be removed and replaced with something like: Burt, an "arrogant" former space marshal or even Burt, a former space marshall and remove the "arrogant" entirely; the rest of the gameplay section doesn't make it obvious as to why this is a required description. Is the removal of rank tied in with his arrogance? It doesn't make it obvious.
• What's the "Backspace?"
• What's the importance of T.A.M.I.? Do they have any powers? Go into semi-depth here and then go into even more depth in the gameplay section.

• T.A.M.I. isn't even mentioned in gameplay.

• After the completion of each level, the player gets a ranking from 1-5 "stars" indicating how well they performed. Does it indicate how well they did or is it based on how well they did?

@Kees08: I may be able to spot a few more things later. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Had a quick glance at the article. Pointing out some issues:

1. Wccftech is an unreliable source.
2. Reception section is lacking and not broad in its coverage.
3. There is an IGN score cited in the review table but it isn't cited anywhere in prose. Articles should not be listing review scores in the table without covering and referencing the review in text.
4. and it was released for iOS on the 9th. – see MOS:DATEFORMAT
5. Many reviewers were impressed by the simplicity of the game's dual-stick controls, – This statement only has one citation. One reviewer does not imply many reviewers.
6. These rewards include weapons, bombs, distraction devices, and armor. – Missing citation.
7. Each type of weapon has a maximum amount of ammunition that can be held for it at any one time. – Missing citation.

--The1337gamer (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• The scare quotes around Wild West are not really needed. Our WP article could just quote the TouchArcade article using "futuristic wild west setting" - I think that would be more appropriate.
• I don't quite understand the game's notability. Was it a best-seller? Is PixelBite a famous/well-known developer? Did it go viral because a big-time gamer endorsed it? It seems to me that claims of notability in the lead section could be more-developed.

Shearonink (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)