Talk:Twilight Struggle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 01:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article, comments should be added here in the next few days. Kingsif (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style

Lead appropriate length for article
Doesn't follow the Board game style guide (linked in #Verifiability)
The italics in the gameplay overview do not make sense. Why are certain words italicised - looks like game mechanics, yes, but why?
Do we need to wikilink dice?
Mentions Eurogame a few times where knowledge of what that means is important, without even giving a brief explanation; yes, there's a wikilink, but a short line about it would help
Generally written well
First two lines of Reception seems perhaps too descriptive and not summary style
Fail for now

Coverage

May go into too much detail on the rules per the Board game style guide (linked in #Verifiability)
Doesn't mention if the digital versions are via Steam, which I only realised when looking because the lead made me interested to play.
Development and later edition section otherwise has good coverage
Awards section good, not long enough to need columns. Glad decision made to include it.
Fail for now

Illustration

Good use and spread of images throughout
Appropriate fair use rationale for image of gameplay
Pass

Neutrality

Seems good, but the sentence "It became GMT Games' all-time best-seller by far, with still-accelerating lifetime sales of approximately 100,000 copies as of July 2016" is somewhat biased. Could be rewritten to contain the same information more neutrally.
Needs attention

Verifiability

Wouldn't say I'm an expert on boardgames, but the sources look good.
Gameplay largely uncited - this isn't a plot, needs RS per WP Board game Style guide
Rulebooks in competitive play section uncited
Fail

Stability

Edited erratically, up to only adding a citation for something yesterday. Concerns about article drastically changing on the regular.
Fail

Copyright

Check looks clean
Good fair use rationale for copyrighted image
Pass

Overall

Is there a steam version I can get?
on hold Some stuff to work on. And I found the Board game Style guide, which I feel should be followed. Needs refs. Kingsif (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kingsif, I've edited the article to address some of your points but I don't understand or agree with all of them:

Could you explain in what way you do not think it corresponds to the WikiProject Board and table games style guide? I followed the guide while editing and the only point of divergence I see is that gameplay could perhaps be shortened further. However, most elements do relate to what is mentioned in the development or reception sections, as the guide recommends. To understand the influences of other games,those elements must be described for this game, reviewers' appreciation of the historical focus requires understanding how gameplay deals with history, etc.

The points being the structure (history before gameplay), not being excessive on the gameplay, and needing to cite the mechanics. I searched for it because there weren't refs for the gameplay and I wasn't sure if the plot style (i.e. don't need to cite plot for a publicly-accessible book or film) would apply here. Safe to say, it needs refs, and the other things mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing newly introduced game concepts is per MOS:WORDSASWORDS: "A technical term being introduced is often being mentioned as a word rather than (or in addition to) playing its normal grammatical role; if so, it should be italicized or quoted." Game rule books often capitalize such concepts to distinguish them, but I don't think the MOS supports that. I'm not married to it, if you think it's more legible without.

No, I was just asking, I assumed there would be a reason. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the platforms the Digital Edition is available on. It seems inappropriate to mention a specific vendor like Steam. It's obviously convenient if you're a Steam user, but MOS:VG does not recommend doing so for video game articles (but only explicitly recommends against it as an external link). The Digital Edition has rather limited coverage compared to the board game (though I hear it's a good adaptation), and this should be reflected in the level of detail given in the article.

Thanks for response here (glad I can get, and I see the rationale for not mentioning). Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The game is a primary source for itself and the citation is clearly implied; writing about what the rule book says is just like writing about the contents of any other book. (By contrast, a secondary source interpreting the rules would be explicitly cited.) The WikiProject style guide doesn't say otherwise, as I read it. I'll add a footnote to each of the gameplay section paragraphs if you insist, since it's better to err on the side of more footnotes, but I ask you to reconsider; I don't think the article will be improved. On the same principle, mentioning the rule book of a particular edition in prose is a kind of citation, but I'll add a footnote if you prefer.

The game is a primary source for what it looks like, not for gameplay, and I don't think the rulebook is... (see my comment about why I checked the style guide - I was looking). See, what happens in a film is obviously visible, the words in a story are, but the gameplay of a card/board game is not clear from looking it, and the rulebook is a secondary source that provides this information about something else. Like, we can see where buildings are but for WP purposes we must find either a document describing it or a map showing it and include a citation for that. So I'd like at least a footnote, please, I hope this explains why. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Kim Post: re Kingsif (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The stability criterion refers to instability due to an "an ongoing edit war or content dispute" and excludes "good faith improvements to the page", so I think it is satisfied here. Kim Post (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but at reviewing discretion, it found it odd that there was something necessary added only yesterday, and (though I realize now I didn't leave this comment) wondered what else might suddenly be found necessary that isn't here... but as a main editor, I shall leave these worries to you, as it seems otherwise satisfactory to me. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased the bit about Reception that I mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, does abrief mention of its Euro-games influence resolve your point? Particularly the emphasis on its use of scoring cards derived from Alan Moon as per the reference for the section? MichaelRoaUMD (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No activity from the nominator in over a week after their first response, even with ping reminders. Kingsif (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rules summaries do not need to be cited, nor does the style guide mentioned above impose any such formal requirement (and why should it? the source for verifying the information is blatantly obvious). It just says that cites to RS should be added "where appropriate". I'm a little wary of paying too much attention to sets of "rules" like that, as I've personally come across examples in game play articles of editors changing the "rules" and then editing articles to comply with "rules" they've just invented, but here at least we are within touching distance of common sense.Paulturtle (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]