Talk:Flappy Bird/GA2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

Following concerns on this article's talk page and a discussion at Wikiproject Video games, and considering I still do not think this article fits the GA criteria, I will be conducting a GAR in an effort to have the issues fixed. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


  • Should mention that the player is awarded medals for their scores. DONE '''tAD''' (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I seem to remember there being leaderboards, if so those should be mentioned too.
  • The random nature of pipe gap placement is probably worth a mention.
  • doesn't seem to be a reliable source and I'm not sure about Wolfshead or Red Key Blue Key.


  • Not confident Sentral Gamer is a reliable source
  • Who described it as "the new Angry Birds"?
  • The most downloaded app in January or ever?
  • "The Verge reported the game was earning around $50,000 a day in revenue through its in-game advertising" - in the lead it says the developer said this, should be clarified somewhere. (as above)
  • I'd like to see a better source than one which says "As promised" to back up that the game went offline "exactly on cue".
  • Sources 30 and 31 aren't being used to cite anything but could be, the MMO for example.
  • I don't personally think the Sydney Morning Herald's security advice should be present here.
  • The Legacy section should include mention of the possible return of the game ([1], [2]) DONE '''tAD''' (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


  • Lacking a comprehensive overview of the reviews.
  • The Kotaku article claim should have another source proving that it was a notable article to include here. If it didn't get any other coverage then I don't think it's worth mentioning. (The Rolling Stone article mentions it on p3. I don't know how to phrase it. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC))
  • "Who" tag should be addressed.


  • Fair use rationales need to be improved.

Other things[edit]

  • I don't think the article is comprehensive enough. There are a plethora of unused sources on topics not covered; [3], [4], [5], [6] DOING/DONE '''tAD''' (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Death threats aren't mentioned despite huge amount of coverage: [7] DONE '''tAD''' (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


  • The sources are definitely an issue. The ones which Samwalton has pointed out need to be removed/replaced: mrspeaker, Woflshead, Red Key Blue Key, and SentralGamer. I went ahead and improved the non-free use rationales. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist as GA
  1. "caused phones with it pre-installed to sell for high prices over the Internet." - sources actually claim the opposite...
    Source:"Doing an eBay search for items which have actually sold, I can’t find any evidence that anybody has bought any of these Flappy-Bird phones."
    Source:"We've reached out to eBay to determine whether this listing and some of the other high-price auctions are legitimate."
    Source:"I can’t imagine anyone actually intends to pay." "It’s impossible to tell how many of these listings are serious, or how many actual sales will result from this flood, but it’s safe to say that at least a few people will be willing to shell out a premium for one of these phones." "Apparently eBay has begun removing these listings, saying that all phones must be sold unlocked and at factory settings."
  2. "The Verge reported the game was earning around $50,000 a day" the original source is the developer, not the Verge.
  3. "Google Play exactly on cue" poor choice of words
  4. "eBay were offering phones which had the app pre-installed for US$1499 or more, with some receiving bids of over $90,000" no way to verify the bids were legitimate, and the sources are also sceptical, inappropriate.
  5. File:Flappy Bird logo.jpg it is unclear where this image is actually from.
  6. File:Flappy Bird gameplay.png is not it's true resolution. See [8] for true resolution.
    • This doesn't matter; fair use rationales require low resolution images. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
    I think he may have been noting that the nfur said incorrectly that it was the same resolution. I think I've fixed both image problems. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  7. Why is Template:Video game reviews not in use?
  8. Why is there no image comparing the mario pipes? Same with Piou Piou vs. Cactus? Both covered by multiple sources.
    • Kotaku withdrew their claim so I don't think this is appropriate. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  9. References seems like a construction site. WP:BAREURLS, missing publisher, non english sources need to be labelled with that.
  10. Is the Vietnam portal link appropriate?
  1. External links: the iTunes link can only be accessed by users with iTunes installed
  2. External links: the Google Play goes to an archive, is this appropriate? Also it should labelled as archive at a minimum.
  3. External links: Nguyen Dong on Twitter, but the rest of the article refers to him as Dong Nguyen.
  4. External links: .GEARS Studios website - nothing on the website about Flappy Birds, mildly relevant.

It fails possibly the entire good article criteria so should be delisted immediately.--Vaypertrail (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It's been 10 days now and some big concerns have still not been addressed, specifically the poor sources and lack of in-depth reception section as well as various other issues, so I'm going to delist this GA. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)