Talk:Tiny Tower

Assessment for Start Class

1. The article suffers heavily from WP:Gamecruft; the table is completely unnecessary as it falls under the scope of game guides, and the Gameplay section should be generally far more concise, giving the reader an idea of how the game plays rather than a guide to specifics costs and times in game.
2. The article could do with a few references before being upgraded to Start class in my opinion, Start class articles should "provide enough sources to establish verifiability.", which this doesn't.
3. The lead section also still reads a little like an advertisement, "The game has many aspects, such as active moving bitzens, passive playing, and pixel art graphics" doesn't sound quite enough like a neutral point of view in my opinion.

I'm by no means an expert, but I hope this helps. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

This article definitely doesn't meet start class yet. Perhaps I might be able to help with the lead section soon. Maybe. Numbermaniac^(C) 00:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I might take a look at improving it tomorrow. It's going to involve the unfortunate task of removing a lot of work though. Samwalton9 (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I had the well-timed pleasure of discovering WP:Gamecruft earlier today; it seems my little table's gotta go! :( I recommended it for an upgrade because, although the article has many flaws, it still has a lot more information than what I would consider to be offered by a stub article. Then again, I'm quite new round here :) Jramsden271 (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry too much, the article can be upgraded to Start quite easily I think, we just need to add some references, flesh out reception a little, and clean up the Gameplay section. If we do a good enough job of that it could easily be a C class article even. I'm quite new to editing too by the way! Samwalton9 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

All we need is a little bit extra referencing, and this article can be declared start-class, even if the beginning is like an advertisement. To go any further, we'll sadly have to remove the table, improve the lead and add any more useful content. Numbermaniac - T- C 03:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've begun improving the article, but not having played the game I'll leave the Gameplay section alone and focus on the other parts. On a side note, we're probably at Start class already. C isn't far off though with a re-done Gameplay section. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This article can now be officially start-class, hooray! Three cheers for Sam! Numbermaniac - T- C 22:58, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The bot apparently assesses articles every three days, so hopefully it will be changed to start class within the next three days. :) Numbermaniac - T- C 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The assessment log has picked this up already. I'm still confident the article can be C-Class after the Gameplay section has the details removed. Having not played the game I don't feel confident rewriting it though so I guess we're waiting for Jramsden to update it unless you feel up to it. Samwalton9 (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the Portuguese version of this article has been rated a good article. I have absolutely no knowledge about Portuguese, but perhaps we could use google translate to base the English model on this? I will have a look and see what I can do. It will be a shame to remove the gameplay floor stats details, but we may have to if we want to upgrade this to C-class. Numbermaniac - T- C 03:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The article has officially been changed to Start-Class! Hooray! Numbermaniac - T- C 08:26, 1 April 2013 (UTC)