Talk:End Poem/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominators: Tamzin (talk · contribs) • BarntToust (talk · contribs) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Pokelego999 (talk · contribs) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this seems like a fun one. Will take this on at some point soon. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey great to see this get picked up this quickly! For many people it's the holidays, and that's an IRL busy time, so there's no rush. Barnt Toust 00:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust: and @Tamzin:

Six GA Criteria

1. Article is well-written. Very minimal mistakes if any at all.

2. No OR, all info is cited in the article.

3. Coverage is broad in depth and focus. Shows multiple aspects of the subject.

4. Article appears neutral, and does not appear to hold a significantly negative nor positive stance on the subject.

5. Article appears stable. Does not appear to have had any major vandalism occur.

6. Article uses no fair use images or files. (Impressive)

Lead

-Looks good

Creation and use in Minecraft

-Looks good

Reception

-"calls it "weird" and unlike anything else except maybe the ending of Battlestar Galactica (2004)" Is the Battlestar Galactica bit a quote? I feel it should be reworded if not (Perhaps something like "and unlike anything bar the ending..."

Ownership and copyright status

-Looks good

Since this is pretty glowing, just going to do the spotcheck now.

Sources analyzed: 12, 3, 8, 23, 11, 2. 3 is inaccessible by me, but the others look good, so I assume good faith that it verifies its contents.

Overall, you both did a fantastic job. The comment above is pretty minor and I take assurance that it will be addressed in some capacity, so I'm going to take the pre-emptive measure of passing the article. One minor comment is that if you intend to take this to FA, the CBR source may not be up to snuff there, but outside of that, excellent job, both of you. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 04:51, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Happy holidays. I converted the bit about Battlestar Galactica into a quote. Thank you for your time in reviewing this.

I think if we take it to FA in the literature category, we may find CBR less of a problem. I'm aware that WikiProject video games sort of has a hate boner for the publications run by Valnet, as some of their stories are suffering from the whole "churn out more for the content farm" thing. I consider CBR and Collider to be among two of their more helpful publications on more frequent basises, though isn't the entire industry of journalism, period, suffering from the need to churn out leveraging AI? Barnt Toust 17:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hol' up, just checked WP:VALNET, CBR is "situational", and the WikiProject video games stipulates that notability should be established by stronger sources. Have plenty of those, so I'd wager a hypothetical FA nom wouldn't really be hurt by the input of a CBR journalist. Barnt Toust 18:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured I'd clarify: Due to Valnet being a weaker end source due to its habits as a content farm, Valnet sources typically aren't considered up to snuff at FAC a lot of the time. For the purposes of a GA I have no issues, but since FA requires stronger sourcing than a GA, Valnet is often not up to snuff, and I figured I'd at least make you aware of that if you plan to take it there. Not to say it can't be used with stipulations; a Screen Rant piece passed in Raichu's FAC recently because it was written by a reputable industry journalist, and sources from more reliable publications like TheGamer tend to be fine to use, but in this case, the source tends to be considered very borderline as a whole, and the piece's author (Creswell), from a Google search, seems to really only have experience at CBR in terms of major journalistic outlets.

Obviously I can't read the minds of hypothetical reviewers, but this is a pretty common trend at FAC reviews from what I've both seen and heard. If you want to use CBR, be prepared with an argument for why you're using it and what it adds, and how its removal may detriment the article, though do be aware if the article is considered to be relying on a lot of "weaker" sourcing, some may be suspect of that. I can't guarantee that'll work, but if you're dead set, I figured I'd at least make you aware of the stipulations that come with the source and some ideas of how to work around them. Best of luck if you do take it up there, since this article is in a pretty solid state as it is. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really have to speak with Tamzin about taking it to FA. Thanks for your words of caution to the whole process. I'd say that the value of the source as it pertains to the insights it gives is the only indication of its worth, though I must admit I'd rather do some more Google Scholar work if more worthy sources appear. If I can replace a magazine or website with a newspaper of record or a scholarly journal, I always like to do so. Thank you for your insights on the processes of the depth of FA reviews. I see the Pokemon FAC got by using several TheGamer sources, which I'm sure were judged by the value of the content within, and not the fact that it's a Valnet website. That gives me less pause about stuff like CBR being used in this case. Barnt Toust 18:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]