Talk:1000 Days of Syria/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 11:47, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for submitting this article. I think the article is well written but needs quite a lot of work to reach a GAN status. I will leave some broad feedback below. Happy to chat about any of it! Whilst there is no threshold for short articles to be GAs, the sourcing is very limited to adequately evidence broad coverage about the game.

If you think this process may take time, I am happy to close the GAN as a fail. As you probably know, that you are welcome to start a new GAN for the article at any time whenever you like, even after a previous unsuccessful nomination. So I hope this isn't discouraging and more an opportunity for feedback on how to make the article better to a GAN standard.

Areas to think about improvement are:

The article does not have sufficient sources to substantiate broad coverage, with only five sources in the article relevant to the game. The Kill Screen article is only a descriptive overview of the game and the Guardian and Cool Hunting articles are an interview. This means there's not a whole lot of secondary commentary, which makes the reception section very slight.

I don't think the article is non-notable, but there are only currently two sources that have significant commentary on the game when the norm is typically three. I really recommend seeing if there are other news sources about the game, particularly those that provide evaluative and not only descriptive coverage, as it is slight.

Generally, assessing review sources for evaluative content should try to identify positive aspects, not what the game isn't: stronger hooks in the Atlantic article include the use of "rigorously-researched narrative elements", discussion on the use of "empathetic engagement" in war games, and the use of moral ambiguity and player choices to approach its themes.

There are some minor sourcing issues with how citations are used.

The Middle East Security Report does not evidence the text about Swenson's experiences. I'm not sure what role it plays in the article, unless you want to provide background information on the conflict.

The point in the Daily Dot article about Israel and Palestine is misrepresented: Brown is saying he is based in Israel-Palestine as a point of personal relation, not that the game has anything to do with the region.

There is no evidence or source for a release date. This isn't a big deal but does indicate there are some gaps in basic information about the game.

As an interactive fiction article, there really should be more information on the plot of the game and the content of the three intertwined character stories to provide proper context in the article.

Plot is not required to be sourced. The best approach is probably to have a run through of the game and consider writing a short summary if no such summary exists in other sources.

@Vrxces: Hi, I'm perfectly okay with the article being marked as a fail to have more time in the oven or left for now based on your judgment. However, I do want to make some of these things clear on how I could expand the article based on what you said:

An extensive plot summary for something like this is something I fear when everything in the game is determined by your actions. As such, writing my own plot summary I feel would be undue. This isn't like, say, Minecraft: Story Mode where the choices the player makes are somewhat negligible or don't change the plot.
I did not add the Middle East Security Report citation, if I take this article further I'm removing it. I'm not sure why it's there either.
While I do agree with the three typically being the standard and/or a good recommendation, I do think that the article got enough sources even if interviews to possibly hold its own article rather than be considered non-notable. Though if that still doesn't change much, yeah there's no other coverage besides what's in the article.
I agree with everything else.

λ NegativeMP1 17:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.