Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Space Marshals/1
- 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)
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 . 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)
- 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)
@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)
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?
Had a quick glance at the article. Pointing out some issues:
- Wccftech is an unreliable source.
- Reception section is lacking and not broad in its coverage.
- 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.
- and it was released for iOS on the 9th. – see MOS:DATEFORMAT
- 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.
- These rewards include weapons, bombs, distraction devices, and armor. – Missing citation.
- Each type of weapon has a maximum amount of ammunition that can be held for it at any one time. – Missing citation.
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.