Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pegasus Bridge (video game)/1
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The article's information is supported by three cited sources. Whilst the article is well-written and three sources is sufficient for general notability, the fairly large sourcing limitations make it difficult to assess that the article is capable of providing broad coverage or giving appropriate weight to its sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delist I am dubious that the broad in scope criteria is passed. There is no development information and slim reception, it feels somewhat incomplete. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delist: Thank you for the notification on my talk page. I was the original GAN reviewer for this article. I was still a very new Wikipedia editor at the time so I fully admit that I did not do a great job here. It appears that the citations from the version of the article I had reviewed (here) were removed though, which is odd, but the article in its current state does not meet the criteria for a GA. Aoba47 (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to have been removed because it was more about the company than the game itself. I don't think wholesale deletion was the way to fix it, as that left a hole in the article. I do think it could stand to be more focused on the development of that particular game though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me, and I agree with your point on both aspects. I do not think wholesale deletion was the best option, but I agree that more focus (and ideally more sources) on this particular game would be best. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Just passing by here, but there is also a review section that only contains the name of the magazine with a source that leads to the review. I feel like it could be better if it was merged with the reception section, but it appears to have been added after the original GA review. Blue Jay (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me, and I agree with your point on both aspects. I do not think wholesale deletion was the best option, but I agree that more focus (and ideally more sources) on this particular game would be best. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to have been removed because it was more about the company than the game itself. I don't think wholesale deletion was the way to fix it, as that left a hole in the article. I do think it could stand to be more focused on the development of that particular game though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:05, 22 October 2023 (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.
- A lot of the articles for games by PSS were like this, many were listed as good articles but don't really seem that good; the development sections of most of them largely just copied a paragraph from the main PSS article, for instance. I'm adding my thoughts to this because I was the one who cleaned up most of those, which did shorten them significantly but it felt wrong to leave them the way they were. Sorry I haven't tried fixing them up, there should be a fair amount of sources for some in some old magazines. --Ringtail Raider (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)