Wikipedia:Peer review/Sonic: After the Sequel/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Star. I want one. Please help.
Thanks, Tezero (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
here you go. Having done the GA review, my main structural comment would be that I understand the difference between GA and FA to be that while every article can feasibly become GA, the comprehensiveness doesn't exist for all articles to become FA. Things like the nuances of the gameplay and how the player controls the character don't appear to exist in the extant sources. There have been a few video game FAs in the last year that have failed on these grounds, if I recall correctly czar ♔ 02:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: First of all, thanks. But I've just realized something hideous: there's basically zero chance that any print sources exist for this. I remember someone opposing Shadow's FAC a few years ago because there weren't any. Is that still a thing? I don't recall it popping up at any recent FACs, but then again, they've all had the sourcing to begin with. Tezero (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- It would be a thing for games that certainly have print coverage, but since this is a very recent ordeal, I would think it's safe to say that print sources (for the sake of print sources) would be unnecessary. (There would certainly be print sources for Shadow, though I think it'd be inappropriate to oppose on that basis unless there are confirmed magazine articles that should specifically have been included.) czar ♔ 16:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- At a glance I think that the demands of an FAC are too great for this subject matter. "The sources/information you want me to include doesn't exist" is not taken very kindly to as a form of reasoning when it comes to FACS (at least in part, because it's hard enough to generate promote votes without telling reviewers you can't do what they want for them). I've battled with it before, and lost. ResMar 04:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: You don't think I could hedge it by stating that the gameplay's modeled after those of the Genesis games and including links to those articles as well as a screenshot? Tezero (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's best to concede that it can't be done, and move on. ResMar 04:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sometimes. I'm not ready yet to concede as much here, though; there's a discussion going on at WT:VG right now ("Sourcing for a potential FAC of limited coverage") if you're interested. The feedback seems to indicate that options are available. Tezero (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's best to concede that it can't be done, and move on. ResMar 04:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Resident Mario: You don't think I could hedge it by stating that the gameplay's modeled after those of the Genesis games and including links to those articles as well as a screenshot? Tezero (talk) 04:19, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- At a glance I think that the demands of an FAC are too great for this subject matter. "The sources/information you want me to include doesn't exist" is not taken very kindly to as a form of reasoning when it comes to FACS (at least in part, because it's hard enough to generate promote votes without telling reviewers you can't do what they want for them). I've battled with it before, and lost. ResMar 04:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- It would be a thing for games that certainly have print coverage, but since this is a very recent ordeal, I would think it's safe to say that print sources (for the sake of print sources) would be unnecessary. (There would certainly be print sources for Shadow, though I think it'd be inappropriate to oppose on that basis unless there are confirmed magazine articles that should specifically have been included.) czar ♔ 16:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)