Talk:Ur-Quan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: David Fuchs (talk · contribs) 19:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~In progress. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Overall, while this article is competently written, I don't think it meets GA criteria at present.

The main issue I see is with criterion 3. The article has all the relevant sections needed for a sufficiently broad coverage of the topic, but the reception section is sorely lacking. We've basically only got four sources' worth of coverage; I don't think the 1MoreCastle ref meets reliable source requirements, and certainly can't be used to justify the statement that they're among the best villains in gaming alone.
Prose is decent enough for GA standards.
Spot-checked refs attributed to current refs 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 17, 20, and 23.
- I would recommend putting timecode for specific callouts for ref 1, the video postmortem, so it is easier to verify, along with/or with direct quotations.
- This bit The Ur-Quan eventually freed themselves, and formed a galactic empire of their own. The green Ur-Quan were renamed the Ur-Quan Kzer-Za in honor of the Ur-Quan scientist who freed them all. is not adequately cited by ref 5.
- The details about the Precursor battleship are not adequately cited by ref 9
- As mentioned, I don't think the 1MoreCastle ref meets reliable source standards.
- Citations missing fields like access date; I would recommend archiving them to avoid linkrot.

If you can find additional sources to bolster the reception section, I will take another look. Otherwise I think the article doesn't meet standards at present. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far. Most of those issues are pretty easy to address and I ask a little patience as I work through them. I see your point about the reception section. I tried to focus on quality over quantity -- four sources proclaiming them as one of the best races -- but there's a lot of smaller praise for them as well. I'll chip away at all of this over the next few days and get back to you. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took a shot at cleaning up the references and making them more readable. I also started to add some of the stronger stuff to the reception, where journalists are very specific about how important they are, particularly this. I still want to do some link-maintenance to avoid link rot. I have also found a lot more reception, but this is where it becomes a matter of style.
I've seen really short GAs like Covenant (Halo). I've also seen GA characters like Celes Chere or Ayla (Chrono Trigger) or even Zero_(Mega_Man). In all cases, they all have some of the high quality "best of" lists and more detailed explanations of why they're notable. But the latter also has mishmashes of passing mentions, long descriptions of plot, or general statements about the writing with the character cited as an example. I've avoided the latter, focusing on quality-over-quantity for the reception section (like "a rare design achievement" or "better than any character that came after"). I realize I might be too strict, and a lot of readers might benefit from seeing journalists briefly mention a character as an element of great story/characterization/music. Plus this is an older series from before the era of internet journalism and top ten lists, so for a journalist to comment on characterization at all is itself pretty noteworthy.
Let me know what you think so far, but I'll continue to work on this either way. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next iteration

I went ahead and addressed all of your points. The current version should have access dates, time codes for the long video, and improved citations for the "Background" section. I also added new sources to the reception, focusing on both the quality of the source and the quality of the coverage. You'll see the reception section is expanded, with new sources and more detail. If this one is close to GA quality, I would simply call it here, WP:IGNORE the additional sources and analysis below, and I'd be happy to iron out the last few kinks.

On the other hand, I might be more strict on sourcing than other editors. I have enough self-awareness that I might be preventing the article from having as much detail as it deserves, and that might actually make for a better article. So I also wrote a version with even more detail in the reception, which I self-reverted as a matter of personal taste but but can re-add if you think it has merit. I've made notes on the 11 additional sources in this Longer Version:

[25] - CON: already cited / PRO: adds more detail about a different noteworthy design aspect
[26] - CON: somewhat WP:SYNTHy / PRO: new cite to a good source from an older era of journalism
[27] - CON: short / PRO: another reliable source from the olden days
[28] - CON: short / PRO: new cite to a very reputable source with valuable historical context
[29] - CON: short, same publication as [28] / PRO: elaborates on the last point
[34] - CON: same publication as [33] and [32] / PRO: adds more detail about what made the design noteworthy
[12][c] - CON: already cited / PRO: adds more detail about a different noteworthy design aspect
[35] - CON: Dickinson Press is reliable but very local / PRO: reliable and useful reception
[36] - CON: found this on google scholar. I don't get why people cite these. / PRO: WP:YMMV
[37] - CON: short / PRO: new cite to a good source with high praise
[45] - CON: they play a minor role in Star Control 3 / PRO: they made some impression
[46] - CON: short, minor role in Star Control 3 / PRO: it's something

As you can see, the longer (self-reverted) version has 46 sources, versus only 35 sources for the shorter (current) version. Like I said, I would err towards the current 35 source version as quality over quantity, which is still expanded from where we were a week ago. If we're up to standard, we can WP:IGNORE the rest of those sources in the edit history, and save yourself some effort.

That said, I can put in more effort if you can. I'd just need to know how many references we still need to cross the GA line. I don't mind working at this if you'd be gracious enough to give me more time and direction. I figure we can select the refs, and then I can spend time cleaning up the prose, particularly for WP:QUOTEFARM. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checking in with User:David Fuchs. No hurry and I know this talk page is getting long. Don't mind waiting and don't mind getting a third opinion if it eases the burden. Still have the time and energy to bring this up to standard. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Remaining issue: what makes 1MoreCastle and PikiGeek a reliable source?
- Ref 35 is missing a title (it looks like the publication name was repeated.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for jumping back in.
- I fixed ref 35.
- As for those two sources, PikiGeek was a Pennsylvania-based site owned by Pikimal, and it appears to have editorial oversight when it was around, and the author is Chris Ullery who now works with the The Intelligencer in Pennsylvania, which has a good pedigree. I think that gets us onto WP:RS. If we want to be cautious, the author is verifying a fact-based comparison that passes the verifiability standard, as opposed to a squishier statement like a "best ever" opinion. There's some precedent for that more cautious single-purpose approach according to this old discussion from when the site was still around. At the very least, this fact is pretty easy to verify and I think this source is reliable enough for this purpose.
- 1MoreCastle also appears to have editorial oversight. It's probably less important now that there's at least one other source that establishes the same thing, and that the statement is really an intro sentence that establishes what other journalists say in later sentences. I know you said it might not alone establish that they're among the greatest game villains of all time, which is why it's double referenced. Perhaps the double reference helps support it sticking around, or perhaps it makes it redundant. I see ho harm in keeping it or removing it at this point, so you can tell me what feels most appropriate.
- Thanks again for reviewing and happy to keep working at it. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the facts are easy to verify, they should be replaced with better sourcing. You can't really add a bunch of unreliable sources together and say that they combine to equal a reliable one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I respect that and if push comes to shove we can just remove it. When I referred to it being easily verified, I was talking about something that could be observed in the primary material, as opposed to an opinion ("the greatest", etc.). Because this is a game from such an old time, sources are going to be obscure, including defunct sites like PikiGeek. Since there is some evidence of editorial oversight at PikiGeek, I started a discussion here to get more feedback. I do respect Wikipedia standards and we can ultimately remove this one statement if it still feels off. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm still open about what to do here and I want to respect your time. Based on the discussion at the WikiProject talk page, people seem to support (or at least consent to) keeping the Pikimal/PikiGeek source here. I do wish more people chimed in on that discussion, but there is evidence of editorial oversight. I'm willing to hear you out on what your objection is to the source. I'm willing to be more cautious with the phrasing. We could get yet another opinion. Whatever moves this process forward. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I defer to the discussion for the purposes of GAC. I will take another look at the article today and see if there are any remaining issues. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate it. Keep me posted with any other issues and I'll be happy to work on them. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]