Talk:Ethnic Cleansing (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Quite the unusual entry for a GA, but I think I can review this neutrally. Give me a few minutes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The link to the home webpage is down on the external links.

• http://web.archive.org/web/20120128214108/http://www.ugo.com/games/ethnic-cleansing - does not work on Archive.org for me. Does it work for you?

• Yeah, but for some reason I have to load it twice; the first time most of the stuff comes up blank. Try that. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• The staff opined that only "very stupid children" would be susceptible to its message and that it would make players feel like "small-minded assholes" - I would simply drop the "very stupid children" and "asshole" quotes and simply reflect that they acknowledged it was a game targeted at children, has blatent racism and that it was further insulting to have it release on Martin Luther King day. I don't mean to mince words, but I prefer that such casual comments as quoted by the reference be paraphrased to maintain professionalism on Wikipedia.

• I would agree, but that changes the meaning. They're doing more than acknowledging the intent and racism; the "very stupid children" part means that it didn't do a good job at being persuasive. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• As for "nightmarishly dumb", I think that is an okay quote if you want to leave one in. Probably not enough to make it a FA, but that might be have to be worked on for unifying the tone and prose if you choose to.

• What would you suggest instead? Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, for the "very stupid children" part - you just explained it better than the publication! I cringe a little whenever see hyperbole like "nightmarishly dumb" which doesn't even make sense and is so descriptively vague. "Profoundly stupid" is a better descriptor and represents the point without getting into whether something is "nightmarish". The term refers to intensely disturbing, but as an adverb... it just ruins the flow somewhat. But that is minor in comparison to the first quotes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've swapped it. Tezero (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• For "About two thousand copies of the game had been" is incorrect. A "couple thousand" is vague and it could be 4000 or 5000, but picking "about two thousand" is not accurate to what Pierce quoted.

• Fair enough. Reworded. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Resistance Records" should be used in full for this sentence. " Resistance released[2] and began to advertise the game on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day (January 21) of 2002." - Also could you please move the reference to the end of the sentence as per usual.

• Done. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• "a reference to the White nationalist motto of the Fourteen Words" is not supported by the Wired source. As a result this reads as original research in the article. If it cannot be supported by another source, I'd opt for the price removal out of relevancy.

• Removed for OR, though I think it's plenty relevant. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• " The National Alliance intended to create an entire line of racist games, but only Ethnic Cleansing and White Law have surfaced.[2][11]" - I do not see "White Law" in either source and both sources are old. I do not think you need a source for this, because you normally cannot prove a negative or non-existence of something with a source. Though the Pop Matters source carries the whole paragraph for you if you wish.

• Reworded to avoid a White Law reference. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Last concern is the creative links or awkward links. As in the case of "subway system" going to rapid transit, "World domination" to Hegemony and most interestingly "monkey noises" to Stereotypes of African Americans. Not sure if you are aware of this, but that page makes no mention of "monkey" or "ape" at all. Racism is racism, but let's not be coy about it either. The other term "going postal" is likely not well-known and can be easily fixed.

• I removed the "monkey noises" link for slight irrelevance (as well as the others), but the page does mention it: "a monkey sound is played". Reworded "going postal". Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, again, but you got to admit that the term is not always used as racist as well. The "monkey noises" were popularly launched at George W. Bush and it was a running gag for some productions. Of course, the clear racist implications are understood, but it was more of a fact that if there is an article on such a stereotype or act that it be linked to it. When I couldn't find any mention I felt that linking to it anyways seemed a bit odd. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The rest seems pretty satisfactory for a GA article, but I did find a few more severe issues then I expected to at first. There are several other sources which you missed that could easily help the article expand a bit more. These include:

• [Confronting Right Wing Extremism and Terrorism in the USA By George Michael http://books.google.com/books?id=5SOAAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA66&dq=National+Alliance+video+game&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YmBcVIqWGJbbsATq0oHYDg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=National%20Alliance%20video%20game&f=false]
• [Beyond Hate: White Power and Popular Culture By Professor C Richard King, Assoc Prof David J Leonard http://books.google.com/books?id=k2J7BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA126&dq=National+Alliance+video+game&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UGFcVImpMY_dsASpyoIw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBjgK#v=onepage&q=National%20Alliance%20video%20game&f=false]

• I haven't seen those specifically, but I have seen a few that aren't used in the page. The problem is that these sources tend to say the same things because so few have actually played the game and most are content with being disgruntled with the idea of it and echoing hearsay and official statements. In this case, from a cursory perusal I'm not seeing anything meaningful I can add from those sources, although if anything's excessively controversial I can use them as supplements. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The last of which also reads like some of the information came from Wikipedia... but does seem to add significantly and cite its sources. Probably more out there, but I'll let you get to fixing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC) ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at that stuff when I'm at my real computer. A minor note: I didn't add the "14/88" part; I agree with the removal of that original research bit. Tezero (talk) 06:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, ChrisGualtieri, think I've gotten to everything. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a distinct feeling about that, you are always a very careful editor. It is why I am not blaming you in the least. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Passed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)