Talk:Once Upon a Time (game)

Once Upon a Time (game) was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 27, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
September 28, 2022	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Board and table games Low‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Release date

BoardGameGeek says the game is released in 1993 and the GameReport review is actually dated 1993. So I'm inclined to believe it was actually released in 1993. barraponto (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Onceuponatime.jpg

Image:Onceuponatime.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from [[{{subst:Once Upon a Time (game)}}]]. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Quick-Fail

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
In the lead, four references are not needed for one point, limit it to three. Wlink "Et cetera." Can you please explain "ingredients of a fairytale"? Also please explain how the players get their Happily ever after cards. How is the storyteller chosen? a player may be required to draw extra story cards, in the lead-the word "story" has the quotation marks around it, so it should be here too, or just not in the lead. What is their ending card...the Happily Ever After card? Additional player cooperation beyond the basic rules is necessary for the story to be coherent and interesting. seems to go against WP:NPOV, can it be re-worded? What are the "'darker' plot elements"? In his essay on the game British author - there should be a comma after "game". In that same sentence, change "said" to "stated". Reword "one of the best ways I've ever found to grab a non-gamer by their imagination and fling them into our world" to one of the best ways he had ever found to grab a non-gamer by their imagination, and fling them into our world. "Games's magazine's" --> "Games magazine's".

Okay, I think that I have dealt with these issues. Hope everything is all right now. Thanks for the comments! --Craw-daddy | T | 12:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
One week for the concerns to be addressed. Good luck!, -- iMatthew _T.C. 01:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, everything looks good. I've passed the article. -- iMatthew _T.C. 12:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Once Upon a Time (game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071015061334/http://gamerdad.com/detail.cfm?itemID=2779 to http://www.gamerdad.com/detail.cfm?itemID=2779

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a GA-level article

See concerns at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#Help_with_Once_Upon_a_Time_(game). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GAR

Once Upon a Time (game)

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: the result was delist. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has been raised in the BTG WikiProject in a discussion with Piotrus, IMHO improvement is needed for this to still be a GA. After this was passed as a good article long ago, new edits were made, including a dot-pointed list with list of minor awards the game won, according to its publisher (non-indepedent and self published). I've changed that to a paragraph, Guinness323 did another cleanup, but IMO there are more problems.

2b) Several refs are poor. I've rm the citing for RPGNet, an user forum (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, in the cases when the statement was also supported by another ref, but it's still used. Also unreliable is the 4th ref. Ref 15 is also another SPS talking about itself, which per the guideline, is all right when The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, this is a bit debatable, as talking about awards it won itself seems to be meeting this IMHO, but this is a minor concern.

Othermore optional issues: a) 5 of the 15 refs are from the publisher, mostly for gameplay, but per WP:RS, Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources, it's understandable as the majority of these refs are for mundane details and rules, but IMO this is still a bit too much. Also, its review section formatting is like a ref section, but the layout IMHO does not follow notes and references layout (maybe it's similar to external links?)

3b) IMHO this isn't followed. The reception section cites very minor awards won by the 3rd edition, all just refed to the publisher. the Development and release seems also to be way too detailed, listing all of the cards and modules, and needs trimming. The review is almost all quoted with attribution, which is fine, but also IMO doesn't follow summary style (this is also cautioned by the MoS for Video Games, but the latter isn't relevant to GAs).

I'll update for more suggestions, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Piotrus: @BOZ: @Guinness323: Pinging BTG-related editors who worked on this article. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just confirming that I agree with Vick's assessment. If this is not updated to modern standards, it will have to be demoted to B-class. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Along with the issues discussed above, the article is not sufficiently broad in its coverage. Comparable to other articles, you would expect more detail of gameplay/rules, history of the game, especially given it is not a new game. There are substantive issues with the references and as already mentioned, many of them come from 'Atlus Games' so I think it fails verifiable requirements. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2022 (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.