Talk:The Club (Nickelodeon)/GA1

GA Review

I am failing this page, as it seems much too short and unreferenced.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this. GAs don't have a specific length. Have a look at Jeanne Calment which passed recently. That's shorter than this one. Normally, it's a good idea to find things in the article that could be improved and give the nominator a chance to improve them. The references seems plentiful as well. What's going on here? I might give this one a review myself later. how do you turn this on 15:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant there does not seem to be enough information.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re

Here's a breakdown of where this is on the GA criteria:

Well written

Yes. Chronologically correct in history section, smooth, etc.

Factually accurate and verifiable

At least one ref in each section, up to 5 in one section

Broad in coverage

Yes, read note below.

Note: To the person who failed this on that criterion: If you've actually been in the game before, you'll realize this isn't nearly as big or popular as Club Penguin and Virtual Magic Kingdom, so it's kind of like a bigger person, in general, can eat more food than a skinny person. This is almost as much content we can have without failing the verifiability criterion.

Neutral

Yes, NPOV is completely undisputed.

Stable

Only occasional vandalism, which is reverted almost instantly, thus not affecting the stability of the article.

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Yes, but only fair use images. Free images are practically impossible to find for a copyrighted game.

This article has very few flaws, and should be passed as a GA. the event horizon (t • c) 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comments from Someone another

Sorry but I'm not seeing a C-class article here let alone a suitable GA candidate. There's at least one whopping gap in information and a lot of the text is meaningless to an information gatherer. Some observations:

There is no reception section. That isn't a slight problem it's a fatal flaw and would stop most videogame project members from rating this above start, let alone go anywhere else.

Even though it is a website, would the videogame project's infobox not be more suitable? Regardless of whether it's a flashgame, a browsergame or whatever, it's still a videogame.

There's a couple of tweaks needed in the citations, such as author name missing, a press release needs citing as one etc.
History
[edit]
The majority of this section is dangerously close to being proseline.

"Construction of Nicktropolis began in November 2004," 'Development' would sit better than construction.

"Nickelodeon's developers Mark Zadroga, Alex Westerman, Deborah Levine, Patrick Dorey, Sean McEvoy, and Jason Root," So who are these people? What are their roles? Their backgrounds? This is just a collection of forenames and surnames with no actual information.

"using the TheoSDK and TheoAvatarSDK engines.[6][3] The game was launched in early 2006, and it had no advertising." A reader who doesn't eat and sleep games is not going to have a clue what a TheoSDK engine is. The only acutal information out of all this is that development began in Nov. 2004 and the game was released in early 2006.

"On June 24, 2007, the game was featured in The New York Times, with a quote stating, "Pre-teenage viewers have a virtual playground to call their own." [8]" It's a throw-away quote anyway, is that all the article actually says about NT? Does it belong in history?

'Release history' does not contain enough bulk to warrant a sub-heading, what's there could be integrated with the other information.
Places
[edit]
Either this should be a gameplay section and actually contain gameplay data, or the gameplay section is completely missing and this is a separate section altogether.

This falls into the classic trap (which virtually everyone falls into, I have too) of listing all of the elements of a particular aspect of a game rather than actually explaining what this all means. The vast majority of it is name-dropping which a reader can safely forget about instantly because they are given very little context.

For instance: "The area is divided into 7 subsections, the first being the SpongeBob SquarePants area (Bikini Bottom) includes 7 rooms, which are the General Store, the Krusty Krab, The Reef, Conch Street, which is a portal to SpongeBob's house, Patrick's house, and Squidward's house." General store is fairly self-explanatory, but what's the Krusty Krab for? What do players do at The Reef? What happens when players visit Squidward? Actual information is needed, not empty lists.

There's a lot of very short paragraphs here which could be condensed (though substantial rewriting is needed IMO, not just a little tidy-up), along with some more sub-headings with very little content.
Sponsorship
[edit]
The large chunk of quote could just as easily be summarized in contributors' own words.

Doesn't this belong in history?

So in the big picture: of the three major sections which virtually all video game articles should contain (gameplay, development/history and reception), two are missing entirely and one contains relatively little suitable info (history). One of the further sections needs a major overhaul (places) and the other could probably do with merging (sponsorship). Realistically this isn't a GA candidate, it would be unfair to expect the article's contributors to do this kind of work within a week. The videogame project's peer reviews and assessment dept. are there if further advice is needed and I'd heartily recommend them. Someone another 10:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I've got my wires crossed and posted this on a long-dead GA review, will tweak and cross post to a new GA review. Someone another 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]