Jump to content

Talk:Klobb/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Le Panini (talk · contribs) 15:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Howdy. Comments coming soon. Le Panini Talk 15:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The six good article criteria

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
      • A lot of the Characteristics section uses a lot of so called "jargon". Whenever there was a popular term, it was put in quotations but then never really describes what it means. Almost as if "its in quotations, so it doesn't matter."
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. 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);
      • I see multiple sentences with a lack of citation, mainly in the Characteristics section. Source as much as you can! Also, these sources could use some fiddling; replace the Nintendo Everything source with the original Game Informer interview, which is more reliable and makes more sense. Additionally, the Destructoid source basically goes over what Edge said.
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    • The characteristics section is... oddly bias, considering you're just explaining what the gun does. Here's some exapmles:
      I don't understand why you need to quote reviewers on "comically underpowered". Isn't it just underpowered? And since overpowered is considered popular gamer language, wouldn't this be too?
      The fire is rate is considered high, but then goes on to say "but not compared to better stuff"
      "It also suffers"
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    • This is just your opinion, and I will change it upon getting an answer. Wouldn't it be better to have an image the the gun being used, for reference to readers?
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

And now for some more specific suggestions:

Lead
  • Now, notoriously bad, yes. One of the worst of all of time? This claim is never made in reception. They say its terrible, though.
  • It's not stated word-for-word, but it's implied by statements like "a towering exception" and especially by the Kill Screen title, "The worst gun ever". I personally don't see an issue with this.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critics have compared it to "a noisy water pistol", but only one critic said so.
  • It goes from talking about development and NPC enemies, then goes to criticism, then back to development. This should be organized.
  • "It was considered the best submachine gun in the Eastern Bloc at the time of its creation, and was adopted by over 20 nations." Not only trivial, but its also unrelated to the Klobb and instead the gun's its inspired off of. Does this section serve importance?
Characteristics
  • As mentioned above, a couple of sentences here don't have citation, and need to have references.
  • As mentioned above, it seems to be written in a negative tone apart from the second paragraph.
  • As mentioned above, there is a lot of prose that is masked with quotations without context.
Development
  • The first paragraph over-quotes. Quotes should only be used if there is no better way to describe it. The first quote talks about how the gun is bad, but is difficult to read. As such, it should be paraphrased.
  • Whose Ken Lobb? Just the person that said "hey, this is illegal"?
Reception
  • This section is where I have my most issues. The whole general layout of this section amounts to "This source said 'direct quotation'. Per WP:RECEPTION, quotations should be avoided as much as possible. Instead of just relaying what they said, describe it in an easier way.
  • It would also be much better to combine reasons arisen by multiple critics. If everybody said that the gun was garbage, we don't need to hear what names it was called by other critics. For example "pure, unabashed Czechoslovakian garbage", "the gun everyone loves to hate", and "the most useless gadget in any James Bond adventure" are all variations of, "this thing is garbage". Maybe organize this section into ways such as "Critics didn't like this (maybe give some examples)", "some critics didn't like this (maybe give some examples)", "however, Edge liked this". After this copyediting, its gonna lose a lot of its length. According to czar, " if this overquoting was properly paraphrased, there would be basically nothing in this article. It's worth a paragraph in the game's article and no more." I'm not gonna take this route, but it could be considered.
  • According to WP:MOSVG, the legacy section should only have its own section if there's enough content to differ it. These two sections should be merged.
Verdict

I have my issues with this articles. As such, I'll put this article On Hold for pending changes. Le Panini [🥪] 20:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Le Panini: I rewrote parts of the Reception section, so hopefully all your issues have now been addressed. Tell me if there are any more problems that still haven't been mentioned. Also, Re: your statement about the gun being used, I feel like that wouldn't be as clear or obvious as a simple picture of the gun itself, and might make it seem like the article was about James Bond instead (or whatever the gun was pointing at).ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still believe the reception can be greatly shortened; a lot of the reviews simply just say "It's bad, and is like this thing". It's better to organize these into summarizing points, such as "The gun was compared to a noisy water pistol,(source) an anti-theft device,(source)" etc. Since all of these sources basically say the same thing, wouldn't you consider this a good candidate for merging? Le Panini [🥪] 20:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Le Panini: There is enough information in the article that it would be WP:UNDUE to merge it. So no, I don't believe it can be merged without losing most of the info, which would be an effective "delete" for the article. Per WP:MERGEREASON, it's not an overlap or the same subject, but a sub-element of a larger title. If this would be enough to merit a merge, then no articles about fictional subjects would be allowed to exist at all.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Zxcvbnm, Fair enough, I'll pass this article, but I still think this article might be an easy topic to pick on by others. Le Panini [🥪] 07:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Le Panini: Thank you for understanding. And thanks for the review. Have a happy holidays!ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Klobb/GA1&oldid=995828766"