Talk:Bit City/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 04:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Nub098765 (talk · contribs) 09:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Nice little article. I'm surprised how much you could squeeze out of it—with such reliable sources, no less. I'll give my assessment in due time. Nub098765 (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! (Though I might need some help filtering some content; I figured some unnecessary information about the game could be deleted.) TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't find any instances where info was so digressional that it should be removed. Seems fine, though I may just be tunnel-visioned. Nub098765 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I'll respond once I'm back from school. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Nub098765 (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Nub098765: Done! TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, here we go.

1a: prose

Overall, this article has very, very clean prose. There are just a few spots that I must comment on:

• "Permanent upgrades apply to every city needing Bux; each new upgrade increases the amount of cash in the Pension Pig, an in-app purchase that rewards the player with the cash." — I can't quite grasp the meaning of this sentence. Do the cities need Bux, or is it the upgrades? Also, the Pension Pig is a container in which cash is accumulated and stored, and an in-app purchase gives the player the money in the Pension Pig, correct? In this prose, it reads as though the Pension Pig itself is the in-app purchase, which isn't true, right? Maybe it could be clarified: "...each new upgrade increases the amount of cash stored in the Pension Pig. The Pension Pig accumulates cash over time, and players can purchase it as an in-app purchase to claim the accumulated funds." Nub098765 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This source states that "there are a plethora of permanent upgrades that will apply to all your cities that require Bux", so the second option would be right. And yes, you are correct about the Pension Pig. Changed.
• "The player may choose to prestige, sending the player to the first city with their upgrades and Bux intact and giving them keys with a collective earning bonus." — What, exactly, are "keys"? What are they used for? Does the "collective earning bonus" relate to them? Nub098765 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • This source states that keys give an earnings bonus when the player prestiges, so I assume the keys would have some type of connection.
• "After the game was in Google Play's early access program a month prior, Bit City was released for Android and iOS on March 13, 2017." — It feels like you're overqualifying the timeline of the game's stint in the program. Perhaps you could reformulate the sentence to "Bit City was released for Android and iOS on March 13, 2017, following a month-long early access period on Google Play."
  • Rephrased.
• "...and moon cities were added on April 13." — Moon cities haven't been discussed thus far, so stating this here feels out-of-place (or at least uncontextualized). Perhaps you could mention these moon cities in the gameplay section? Nub098765 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Mentioned, but I had no clue where to squeeze it in, so I put it at the end.
• "Campbell Bird of 148Apps criticized that Bit City gave 'very little satisfaction'..." — This phrasing is a bit awkward. Consider: "Campbell Bird of 148Apps criticized Bit City for providing 'very little satisfaction'..." Nub098765 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • That sounds way better. Changed.
• "Staff members from the publication reviewed the game..." — Staff members from which publication? Obviously, from the source, it's Pocket Gamer, but clarifying it here, since the previous sentence discussed both 148Apps and Pocket Gamer, could be beneficial. Nub098765 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Clarified.
• "Critics received the game's soundtrack positively." — How did they receive it positively? What did they commend about it? Nub098765 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Added (not sure if it's accurate).

1b: formatting

Seems formatted well enough to me. Personally, I'd merge the two paragraphs in the "Release" section, but one could chalk that up to personal preference.

2a: list of sources

There is a well-formatted list of sources present at the bottom of the page.

2b: reliability and referencing

Every passage is attributed to a reliable source. 148Apps is considered situational, but it seems fine enough here. However, I see that the first sentence in the "gameplay" section is cited thrice, which would I'd normally gloss over, but they're all to the same publication: TouchArcade. Would it not suffice to just cite it to one?

2c: original research

To see if there is original research, I will conduct a spotcheck of sources as of revision 1261282846. Since this is a short article, I will check every first reference of every source in this article for integrity, and AGF on the other uses.

• 1a:
• 2a:
• 3a:
• 4a:
• 5a:
• 6a:
• 7a:
• 8a:
• 9a:
• 10:
• 11:
• 12:
• 13:
• 14a:
• 15a:
• 16a:
• 17a:

Yeah, this passes my spotcheck. The prose paraphrases the original texts, with no leaps in logic, i.e., there is no original research.

2d: plagiarism

Earwig detects a 2.0% similarity. That is by far the lowest I have ever seen, and I think it's safe to say that this article does not plagiarize.

3a: main topics

I mean, there isn't much to discuss about this topic, so yes, this article discusses all of the main topics about this article. A cursory Google search revealed no more main talking points. I'm honestly kind of surprised there aren't more reviews, but I digress.

3b: focus

This article, at just ~600 words, is focused. There are no digressions into specific topics, and each sentence introduces another piece of info.

4: neutrality

This article presents the info with no bias for or against the subject. It is incredibly neutral, even in the reception section. Good job, TTWO!

5: stable

This article has not been edited in about a month, i.e., there are definitely no ongoing edit wars, move discussions, etc. that could interfere with any viewing of the article as it stands.

6a: illustrated

With two images, this article is as illustrated as necessary. Both images are fair use, and the image in the infobox gives in-depth rationale for its inclusion. The screenshot, however, uses generic language and curt explanations in its rationale. Could you possibly expand this? Nub098765 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Expanded.

6b: relevant media

Both images are incredibly relevant to the article: one identifies the game, and the other illustrates its gameplay. Captions are satisfactorily illustrative.

Verdict

And that's about all of my assessment, @TrademarkedTWOrantula. This article is greatly written and researched, so I commend your skills. Just a few issues are getting in the way of this and GA status. I'll conduct a spotcheck once these are tended to or responded to. Thanksya, Nub098765 (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, @TrademarkedTWOrantula. That is about all of the concerns I had for this article, and they seem resolved now. I'm happy to pass this article. Good job, and I wish you luck on your future Wikipedia endeavors! Nub098765 (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.