Template:Did you know nominations/The Letter (video game)
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by Fuebaey (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
The Letter (video game)
[edit]- ... that reviewers questioned whether the extremely poorly received 2014 horror game The Letter should be sold on the Nintendo eShop?
- Reviewed: I Won't Let You Down (OK Go song)
Created by EditorE (talk). Self nominated at 03:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC).
New (2nd), long enough, neutral, no overt copyvio found via spot check, QPQ needs to be revisited—not a full review. There is no citation that the game received "extremely poor" reviews, but that it was one of Metacritic's lowest-rated games. You can use that. And only one review of the three cited appears to say anything about not selling it on the shop. Also I'm not sure that site is reliable—it doesn't appear to have editorial control. See WP:VG/RS. Furthermore, that sentence looks like original research as stated. Be sure that only the sources that verify the sentence's claims are linked, and that they're attached directly to their claims. No hyphens after -ly adverbs. Rephrased hook. Please ping me if I don't respond. czar ⨹ 19:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
A few other issues: many of the sources used are not reliable. They need to be vetted at WP:VG/RS or abandoned. The article could also use a copyedit, perhaps through WP:GOCE as its prose is sloppy and this would be linked on the front page. The gameplay section is generally cited, though I see that it's mostly plot. Even still, it's a brief plot, so is there no source available? There is also excessive quoting that can be effectively paraphrased. Needs a bit of work, but nothing insurmountable. czar ⨹ 19:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but what sources did you find "unreliable"? They all look fine to me. Also, considering this is a game article, a source would usually not be necessary for plot summary considering a reader could go play the game as a source. Also, I'm finding no way to paraphrase the long quotes. 和DITOREtails 20:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- In decreasing order of concern: Wii U Daily (as mentioned above), Gamnesia (no fact-checking oversight, no expertise required), Wii's World (fine for now it's an interview, but otherwise wouldn't be reliable), Pure Nintendo (has no editorial policy, though it was in print briefly, hasn't been vetted by WPVG), and Cubed3 (situational source, mixed opinions at WPVG). Basically, better sourcing should be preferred, if available. And if you think the aforementioned sources have a reputation for reliability, it's worth running them past WP:VG/RS, where WPVG maintains a list of vetted sources. I know how the plot sourcing works, but I asked if there was really no sourcing available since the section is so short. Shouldn't be a big deal to source it, but if you're totally opposed, forget it. If you're having trouble paraphrasing, perhaps seek out WP:GOCE? At least half of the quotes are easy candidates for paraphrase, but it's excessive in the current draft. czar ⨹ 21:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting suggestions. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for the comments!!! 和DITOREtails 00:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- According to Gamnesia's staff information page (as you linked), there are copyeditors on the site that check facts as well as making sure the articles are properly-written. Also, I'm pretty sure Pure Nintendo Magazine is a personal blog. 和DITOREtails 21:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- They're copyediting yes, but not necessarily fact-checking. Anyway, the site doesn't have a reputation for reliability as far as I can tell, but that's something for WP:VG/RS's talk page to sort out, if you want to take it there. I recommend using the WP:VG/RS custom Google search to find sources known for their standards czar ⨹ 23:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
- Also, just in case this discussion doesn't get failed, I've submitted the article to the guild of copyeditors. 和DITOREtails 13:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
- In decreasing order of concern: Wii U Daily (as mentioned above), Gamnesia (no fact-checking oversight, no expertise required), Wii's World (fine for now it's an interview, but otherwise wouldn't be reliable), Pure Nintendo (has no editorial policy, though it was in print briefly, hasn't been vetted by WPVG), and Cubed3 (situational source, mixed opinions at WPVG). Basically, better sourcing should be preferred, if available. And if you think the aforementioned sources have a reputation for reliability, it's worth running them past WP:VG/RS, where WPVG maintains a list of vetted sources. I know how the plot sourcing works, but I asked if there was really no sourcing available since the section is so short. Shouldn't be a big deal to source it, but if you're totally opposed, forget it. If you're having trouble paraphrasing, perhaps seek out WP:GOCE? At least half of the quotes are easy candidates for paraphrase, but it's excessive in the current draft. czar ⨹ 21:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- @EditorE: Are you still working on this? A full QPQ has yet to be provided. Fuebaey (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
