Talk:Detroit: Become Human/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) 23:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is branching out a bit for me as I am not that familiar with video game articles, but I have plenty of film and TV GA experience so hopefully that serves me well. I have a good read through the article soon, and get back to you with some thoughts. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: When do you think you'll begin? Not used to waiting so long. Cognissonance (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about this. I didn't manage to get to it on the weekend but should be good for this weekend coming. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues and discussion

Sorry again for the delay. Here are some things that I would like to see fixed up before I promote the article to GA:

~~Can you mention the actors for the other two main characters in the lead as well?~~
~~I don't think the last sentence of the lead is complete or correct. The same for "Magazines abound the levels for players to read."~~

@Adamstom.97: I don't understand. It begins with the fact that it is the developer's most successful launch and ends with the total copies sold. "Abound", a verb for existing in large numbers, is appropriate in that sentence. Cognissonance (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if English is your first language or not, but neither of those sentences make sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: I made the sentence in the lead more straight-forward. I am Norwegian, but "Magazines abound the levels for players to read" is the same as writing "Magazines exist in the levels in large numbers for players to read". It is grammatically sound and Englishly correct. Cognissonance (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the sentence in Gameplay after checking an online dictionary. Cognissonance (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~In-line citations should come after punctuation, not just be placed in the middle of sentences.~~
~~"During his hunt for Markus' group" - ambiguous pronoun.~~

I replaced the following use of "he" instead, which was more likely to be misconstrued as Markus. Cognissonance (talk) 08:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~The big first paragraph in critical reception could probably be split into two.~~

This specific style uses positive reception first, then negative, each with their own paragraph. Breaking that up would defeat the purpose. Cognissonance (talk) 08:46, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but it is a really big paragraph. There is nothing wrong with two paragraphs for positive reviews and one for negative, or one for most positive followed by one of less positive and then one of negative. Just to help the reader. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, begrudgingly. Cognissonance (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~There are enough awards listed that an accolades table may be useful.~~

Let me know how you get on with those, or if you have any questions. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would it also be possible to reduce some of the WP:CITEKILL present in the article, or are all affected sentences' information pieced together from three sources each so that they are all required? Lordtobi (✉) 07:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources accumulate based on the information added. There are no more than four at most in the article. Cognissonance (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not such a big deal to me, but if there are redundant references then it would be good practice to remove them. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Placing this here for the attention of the reviewer - a long-standing issue from the talk page that has not been addressed:

Adam Williams should be included in the writers section, as he was previously, not sure why this keeps being removed.

Many media sources quote him as Lead Writer, including Sony (the publisher): (https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2018/05/23/how-detroit-become-humans-narrative-team-brought-a-world-of-androids-to-life/) (https://www.gamereactor.eu/articles/611843/Detroit+Becoming+Human+with+lead+writer+Adam+Williams/) (https://www.vg247.com/2018/04/23/detroit-become-human-lead-writer-quit-tv/)

The opening credits also mention two more directors: Benjamin Diebling and Gregory Diaconu (cited in the above), the former of which is very active on Twitter/the community and streamed from the game's premiere. (QuanticNut (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The latter two only need to be included if they are widely covered in reliable sources. Merely having the word "director" in the credits does not necessarily make them noteworthy. It does look like the content about the other writer should be added though. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully noted. Many thanks for your input. (QuanticNut (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Also, you guys need to be careful with this edit warring. I cannot promote the article to GA if it is not stable, so you need to sort out your issues through the talk page please. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understand entirely. To give you the full background, the other editor registered an issue with me which has been addressed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_(User:QuanticNut). My contention is that the accreditation is plainly sourced and that the only grounds for dispute is cog's ownership of the page. I'll let the other party put their case in their own words if they choose to, though it's spelled out on my talk page already for your info. (QuanticNut (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

If the scriptwriting credits are important, they can be discussed in prose. This said, I don't find anything in the three sources listed above worth mentioning in prose. The infobox is meant to be shorthand for the article. I didn't see Williams in the end credits, but I did see "Written and directed by David Cage". (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamstom.97: Criteria 5 says is it stable if "it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute". This is a small content dispute with consensus in my favour that is only going on because the editor disregards the consensus. Cognissonance (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Williams in the end AND opening credits (the latter being much more prestigious) as well as dozens of articles before and after publication. The dispute is currently just about whether his name can be legitimately added to the writers' box. The guidelines and common sense say yes. The consensus is also between me and @Adamstom.97:. Anybody who reads the sources and checks the credits ends up agreeing, you just obscure the facts by suggesting one or either source is missing his name when they are not.

What you have said is the definition of ownership: disagreements with you are not valid.

I never really understood why cog was so keen for it to be a no, but he often presents it as if the guidelines support his claims - they do not say what he thinks they say - but he takes it personally and he has been quite aggressive on my talk page about it. (QuanticNut (talk) 04:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

If the syntax guide said "Additional writers" could be added in the infobox, despite contradictions between past and present sources, I wouldn't have a problem with its inclusion. If I had this feeling of ownership, and not just a keen sense of what is a good or bad edit, do all of the editors who agree with me also think they own it? Cognissonance (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm glad you're actually talking to me now instead of threatening to ban me and telling me I'm just 'some random from a subreddit'. Thank you.

Second, the syntax guide doesn't need to positively rule IN every acceptable formulation of 'writer'. That would be endless. Respectfully (and I really mean this) I think you are being tripped up by the fact the style guide is listing alternative forms of 'Writer' formulation to ensure they get included. The style guide doesn't positively include 'Written by' either, we just understand that to be obvious :)

Source: Opening Credits: [[1]

As for other editors, they take a view based on your representation of the style guide, which is incorrect as has been explained by me and others. Very few people also check the game credits. This is a minor issue that most people wouldn't exert this much energy on... but given your language on my talk page I can't help thinking this has become personal for you (QuanticNut (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Sounds to me like his contribution may warrant a line in the body saying "Adam Williams did additional work on the script" or something like that, but is not noteworthy enough to add to the infobox. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But there are others mentioned in the info box and not in the article? Surely adding a line to the article would be going further than we have for other credits? (QuanticNut (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@QuanticNut and Adamstom.97: What about a note placed either in the body or infobox saying "Additional writing by Adam Williams"? Cognissonance (talk) 05:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that require a new info category line? Don't you think 'listing in order of contribution' in the writer box, as per the guidelines, is simpler?

That being said, if he appears in that panel of credits I would be totally fine with him being specified as Additional Writer. (QuanticNut (talk) 06:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I was going to suggest that he be added to the infobox with "(Additional)" added as a note beside his name, but this should only be done if his contribution is notable enough. It puts a lot of emphasis on him, which is especially strange if he is not featured in the actual body. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We mention others in the infobox who do not feature in the body. Frankly it would be easy to add a section on Wiliams to the body but I think this would be overkill.

His contribution is as notable as most of the other names on that list in the sense that he is referenced in media and the game's two credit screens. I would prefer simply to list writers in order of contribution, but in the interests of consensus I could compromise by adding the label (Additional). Thoughts, Cog? (QuanticNut (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I just want this over with. I'd prefer a note beside Cage's name, like the one beside Ubisoft Montreal in Watch Dogs 2, as a compromise. Cognissonance (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cog, look at the page you referenced... it lists 6-7 writers in order of contribution, not all of them leads and none of them relegated to a note like the Ubisoft one. Can you really not see the argument here? Shouldn't we just repeat their format? (QuanticNut (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Obviously it doesn't follow the syntax guide, so I fixed it. Seems like we'll never reach common ground, so let's see where the consensus goes. Cognissonance (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral third-party, I am going to say that you need to prove to me that he deserves to be listed in the infobox QuanticNut, or I will pass the version of the article that does not do so. And being named in the credits is not proof of notability. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What would constitute proof? And must that further proof be provided for everybody else in the infobox? (QuanticNut (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Cog, you 'fixed it' by deleting all the writers on that watchdogs page? Is that really helpful? Are you going to 'correct' every videogame page after that fashion? You will be deleting a lot of work... (QuanticNut (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

That is unrelated to this article, take it up on Talk:Watch Dogs 2. Cognissonance (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Williams interviewed on camera by Sony at the Detroit launch event, credited as Lead Writer: [2] Williams interviewed by IGN: [3] Sony crediting Williams as Lead Writer: [4] Williams interviewed by the Guardian, a national newspaper in the UK: [5] Williams and Cage interviewed on video together: [6]

A simple google search turns up 50+ results for Williams who seems to have done a promotional tour with Cage.

@Adamstom.97: that surely makes him at least as noteworthy as the other people listed in that infobox? (QuanticNut (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Is that information in the article? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking if this info is in the articles I cited? Yes. In the wiki article you are reviewing? No but I can add it if there is consensus.

There is also no specific mention of other names in the info box, but their place is not questioned.

Have I met your criteria for proof? If not, what would meet it? (QuanticNut (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

@Adamstom.97: Per Talk:Detroit: Become Human#Votes, I propose that you carry out the consensus as a neutral party. Cognissonance (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

It is unfortunate that this review has become as messy as it has. Overall, I feel that this is a good article so I am going to go ahead and pass the review. However, I do still have some concerns. I believe the current resolution to the writer issue is the correct one, but if the discussion on it is to continue then that needs to take place at the article's talk page (do not continue it here or start a new edit war). I believe an eye should also be kept on the number of sources addressing each point, as was mentioned above. Other than that, congratulations. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]