Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Reviewing pre-2008 FAs

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Stardew Valley Guidebook (2 participants)
Train simulator (disambiguation) (8 participants)
Preston Arsement (2 participants)
Jackpot World (2 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (5 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (14 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Review priority

I think the 2006 articles are clearly the number one priority. My first review (Metal Gear Solid 3) is evidence that 2006 FAs are well below our current standards. At a glance, Final Fantasy X-2 also suffers from a few of MGS3's problems, namely a tiny Development section and an overdetailed Plot section. It also appears to be largely unreferenced up to the "Story" section. The other 2006 FAs need to be checked as well. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GiB: great work on the FAR/FAC links. I was planning on adding the last few, but you beat me to it. Once I get some spare time, I'll review another article. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to help out. This initiative is something that has been on my mind for a while now. Thanks for getting it off the ground. All we need to do now is drum up support/participation.
  On a side note- I have a good number of print sources at home to help FFX-2, so I'd be willing to help out with that as time permits. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

FLs

This, I believe, could/should be expanded to old FLs. One example, List of Donkey Kong video games, relies so heavily on GameFAQs & GameSpot sources it's painful to look at. Salvidrim! 01:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply.

Given the difference between working on FAs and FLs, I'm hesitant to include them. But I wouldn't oppose the inclusion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Self-reviews?

There's (I believe) 4 articles that I brought to FA and since they stay on my watchlist, I know their state pretty well. Is it considered a faux pas to do a self-assessment of these? --MASEM (t) 17:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the same way about Marble Madness, which I did a review on. I didn't find anything major and made corrections to minor issues I found. I left the reviewed column as "No" and asked for an independent review. Though I imagine that if you noted more serious problems, we'd probably trust your judgement. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I'd say it's okay. I did one for System Shock. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be wiser to at least have editors assert what FAs they either were a part of or have been heavily involved with since in the "Collaborators" column, as a point of contact for any necessary fixes. This makes it easy for any problems to be handled, and identifies any FAs that are lacking "monitoring" editors due to retirement, etc. --MASEM (t) 04:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing reviews

As I understand it, the idea of this effort was to bring pre-2008 FAs up to par and otherwise demote them if impossible. It would be nice to finish this up since it's been a long time coming. @Guyinblack25, Nicereddy, Niwi3, and JimmyBlackwing, I noticed y'all still have reviews open (either started with issues and no conclusion, or finished without updating the "Reviewed" column on your verdict). When you have a moment, can you update your reviews? If you have posted on the individual article pages, it might be time to bring the article to WT:VG or FAR. czar ♔ 00:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only reviewed System Shock, which was my own work. Not the most objective analysis, but I think I might have updated the article since. It's still far from perfect. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:31, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have never formally reviewed the PD64 article, but rather improved it substantially since I joined Wikipedia. In fact, I think I am the main contributor even though the article was promoted to FA status back in April 2006 (the nominator was CALR aka Soo). The article is far from perfect, but it's not bad either. It's solid and fairly decent quality in my opinion. If you find issues, please let me know and I will try to fix them (that's why I added myself as a collaborator). --Niwi3 (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the time (2012), I was the main contributor for those articles so I felt that an outside point of view would be prudent. I listed myself as a someone willing to collaborate on fixing them instead and pointed out any issues that I felt needed addressing.

I have removed my name from the list as I'm basically retired now. Please feel free to move forward with whatever action is necessary. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC))[reply]