Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chocolatier (video game)/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chocolatier (video game)

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept Article improved during the process and now meets our standards. Well done. AIRcorn (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]
My main concern here is that there is massive linkrot. Very many of the links here are 404.

Also, among the links that have been archived:

I'm not sure if grrlgamer.com is a reliable source. The site went offline entirely a few years ago.

I'm also unsure if Jay Is Games is a reliable source, or Gamer-Girl.org (site also went offline entirely a few years ago) are reliable either.


While the tone of the article seems fine, the deadness of the sources has me concerned. Nearly 1/3 of the links on the page are already reduced to Wayback Machine links, and a lot of the sources don't seem to have been reliable in the first place. It's clear the article has barely been touched since going GA in 2008. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability of sources

Came from WT:VG, thanks for the ping. Not planning on doing the full search for the sources here, but wanted to look into the ones you mentioned. Quick assessment below:

  • Grrlgamer: Seems to be reliable? But the author, Didi Cardoso, seems to independently meet reliability thresholds as well. It was founded as an offshoot of the Riot grrrl and third wave feminism movements in 1997 and was the first all-female staffed video game website. Which is actually really interesting-- I was not expecting this to be as reliable as it was when I checked.
    • They seem to have had a staff setup with editors ([1]) per a press release when the site was founded
    • Didi was a featured speaker at Interactive Content Exchange 2007 for Grrlgamer ([2])
    • The site was featured in Nintendo Power in 2006 as a "site to visit" ([3])
    • Book talks about them at length and talks about how the 97 founder was a journalist already ([4])
    • The founder of Grrlgamer talks about her founding of it and why she decided to make it ([5]). Kind of want to write an article about it now...
    • A book describes how Grrlgamer broke the barriers of websites to cater towards female gamers and write quality reviews ([6]).
  • Jay is Games: Per WP:VG/RS (and this discussion), Jay is Games is only reliable when Jay Bibby writes the review himself as everyone else are unpaid freelancers and aren't proper editorialized staff. Too bad, but is not reliable.
  • Gamer-Girl.org: Definitely is not a reliable site, but I believe that it's just being used for the development side of the article and because it's an interview with the creator of the game ([7]). Per here though, I'm pretty sure that we treat it like it's a primary source-- it's just the transcript of the developer's words.

Hope this helps! Nomader (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider running IABot on the article next time instead of turning to GAR to touch that aspect up. No comment on reliability, but Nomader looks like he has a good first cut. --Izno (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have no idea how GAR !votes work, but this is a pretty obvious !keep for me to not delist. I've removed the one unreliable source and sentence that was sourced from it in the article ([8]), and I don't think any of the other sources have changed since the GAN to make them unreliable. Nomader (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full list of sources below and whether they're reliable or not (thought you were just flagging those three):
      • PlayFirst: It's a primary source press release only used for the release date and sequel announcement.
      • IGN: Used just for the release date.
      • GameZone: RS per WP:VG/RS
      • Macworld: Not sure about now, but at the time it was written by paid staff for a magazine with an editorial staff from what I've found. Reliable.
      • Blogcritics: Can't find any staff stuff, will come back later today to double check.
      • Gamezebo: RS per this discussion at WP:VG/RS.
      • Killer Betties: I'm gonna guess a 'no', should probably be replaced. Couldn't find staff or editorial policy.
      • Grrlgamer: addressed above, definitely reliable.
      • Houston Chronicle: RS
      • Pretty Sassy: Not an RS, but the primary source statements from the developer are and are used in the article as such.
      • AZCentral: RS
      • Gamer-Girl: Same situation as "Pretty Sassy"
      • Jay is Games-- thought I caught the ref to delete already, I'll delete the other review as well.
    • And that's it-- really not too much is needed to fix this thing and I think a GAR is premature (although I never would have done all of this if it hadn't been nominated). Nomader (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I left a message at the reviewers, nominators and the video game wikiproject. AIRcorn (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Chocolatier_(video_game)/1&oldid=894679531"