Talk:Fire and Darkness

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fire and Darkness/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs) 06:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look-see. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! → Call me Razr Nation 02:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Review

I'm going to update the table below with individual comments for each of the criteria. Threaded replies within the table are probably going to be the most straightforward way to communicate on this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Some of the evaluation will come in piece-by-piece; I usually read the article over several times in the process to evaluate each criterion on its own. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your thorough review. I will take a look today. → Call me Razr Nation 13:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'll keep this on-hold through February 15 (a week from now) so that you have time to continue fix this up. I'll do a final re-evaluation then (or earlier, should you ping me earlier saying that you've completed all your updates). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:04, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I think back then I had access to the demo. I can't find it anymore. I did a search to see of I could find a magazine from back then. I found several sources but haven't had the time to properly go through them. → Call me Razr Nation 06:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I will also include the sources that you found. For now I think we can close the GA process while I work on those. Thank you, your feedback is very useful. → Call me Razr Nation 06:18, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. I'll close this as failed, for now. Feel free to renominate once the issues are addressed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Current version is clear and concise with good spelling/grammar, but I am marking this as neutral because there need to be substantial changes to prose and I will need to re-evaluate the prose then. Should be good-to-go assuming the new prose is fine. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Marking as neutral for the same reason as 1a. Looks good at this point, though. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	All references are listed in a references section.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:50, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	WP:SCHOLARSHIP gives guidance that a masters' thesis is generally not reliable (unless it is tremendously influential in its field). I'm a bit concerned regarding the use of <off.net>, which appears to be a Princeton senior thesis. It's a graduation requirement for all Princeton students (except a small segment of engineers), and bachelor's theses seem to be less reliable than Masters' theses. I would ordinarily encourage mining the references to see if there's useable stuff, but <http://off.net/seed/Seed/Docs/sources.html> is not archived on the internet archive and I can't get it to load on my computer, so I can't point directly to something. Do you happen to have a local copy of the references page to see if we can save the content? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Separately from the above, I'm seeing that GameDeveloper is written by a self-identified blogger. Would you mind giving me a bit of the background on whether the extent to which the pieces of this sort receive editorial review? It's listed as green at RSP, but I can't find an RfC. My worry is that this might be a WP:FORBESCON situation, but I'm just not familiar with the source. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC) GameDeveloper has a weird structure. John Polson is not a random blogger, he is (or was) the editor in chief of IndieGames.com. So I dont think this falls under the FORBESCON criteria. --→ Call me Razr Nation 00:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC) Seems good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	All statements in the article appear to be plausibly attributable to the sources cited. There does not appear to be novel synthesis going on, either. I do have one question though: there is a "demo" of the game cited for the statements To accomplish this mission, the player spends resources (defined in-game as terajoules) to build combat units and facilities used to engage in war against their opponents, or to produce more resources. According to the demo released by Singularity Software, five planets were featured in the game, and both factions shared the same type of combat units and facilities. Can you provide a bit more explanation about how the demo provides this information? Was this something that you played yourself and are summarizing what you have experienced, or is there some explicit text in the demo that says this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No apparent copyright violations of plagairism. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I'm a bit concerned regarding the general breadth of the article. There isn't all that much there in terms of sourcing, so I understand that the amount of content will be limited, but if statements sourced to the two senior thesis pages are removed, and if the use of the demo is OR, then the remainder of the gameplay section would be a single sentence—and that would definitely not meet the breadth requirement. Are there alternative ways to source those statements, or to build out the gameplay section using reliable sources? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC) (partially struck; see below — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)) I'm looking for sources that can be used to improve this article, and I found coverage from Washington Post (focused more on developers/development but has some info on gameplay), as well as a few variants of a story from Associated Press from right after they won (version 1, version 2) (a bit on gameplay+development/developers), a follow-up story from the AP, and a two-page cover story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on this game. The article needs to be expanded to include more information on the gameplay and development, and there appear to be some pretty good sources to do so. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:24, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The content currently present is focused on the topic. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I'm a bit concerned that (holding the Princeton thesis aside), we've only got coverage from two independent sources cited. It's possible that such coverage is all that exists, but I'm a bit doubtful of that given its victory in the 1999 IGF. I was able to dig up this book that mentions the video game in a paragraph on page 74 and does offer commentary on the game's quality that seems WP:DUE. It's unfortunately not available through WP:TWL as far as I can tell, but the google books preview should be enough to get the relevant information. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No recent edit warring; article is fairly stable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The article's sole image is appropriately tagged as {{PD-textlogo}}. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The sole image is the logo for the game, which is appropriately included in the infobox. It does not have a caption, but it is extremely obvious what it is, and I don't think a caption that says "game logo" or something like that would improve the article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
	7. Overall assessment.	Placing on hold — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Final review

Per the request of the nominator, I'm closing this as failed at this point. A final summary is available below:

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 15, 2023, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Verifiable?: Not yet. The article currently cites a Princeton senior thesis and cites "demo" of the game itself. The sources for the senior thesis appear to be gone from the internet; they are not archived in any internet archive and the original website no longer appears to function. Some content may plausibly be referenced by other sources, but WP:SCHOLARSHIP advises against using the senior thesis in and of itself. The use of the "demo" may be original research; I asked the nominator questions about how the demo provides the information it is cited for (i.e. is this their general experience from playing the demo), but no response occurred.

3. Broad in coverage?: Not yet. I found coverage from Washington Post (focused more on developers/development but has some info on gameplay), as well as a few variants of a story from Associated Press from right after they won (version 1, version 2) (a bit on gameplay+development/developers), a follow-up story from the AP, and a two-page cover story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on this game. The article needs to be expanded to include more information on the gameplay and development, and there appear to be some pretty good sources to do so.

4. Neutral point of view?: Close, but not quite. There's a peer-reviewed book that appears to give some commentary on the game and its reception, but the book is currently omitted. In general we strive to fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, represent all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Given the relatively few views of the game that have been published by reliable sources, some form of the commentary from the book warrants inclusion.

5. Stable?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

Closing for now, though feel free to re-nominate this when the issues listed above are fixed.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:40, 15 February 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.

Additional Sources

Just leaving some sources here for future use.

https://gdconf.com/news/igf_1999_finalists_then_and_no https://www.ign.com/articles/1999/03/19/gdc-stickin-it-to-the-man?amp=1

→ Call me Razr Nation 15:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)