Talk:Digital Homicide Studios/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DasallmächtigeJ (talk · contribs) 21:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been looking at this article for days debating whether to take it on or not, because I think it has to be quick-failed.

Knowing how long you can potentially wait for a GA review, I thought I'd do this to you now rather than having you wait for two months only to be failed. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, so let me explain why:

1. The first and most basic question is, has Slaugthering Grounds, as an individual game, enough standalone relevance to warrant an own article? I would debate it does not. The game is only relevant in context of the lawsuits by Digital Homicide, which brings me to my second issue.
2. As I said, the game is only relevant in regards to the lawsuit and it shows. There is almost no information about the game itself, its development etc. available, Sterling is the only person who ever actually reviewed it. Because of that, the article does not concern itself with the game but the lawsuits surrounding it. So WP:NOTABILITY, especially "Significant coverage" and non-temporary relevance of the game itself is in question here. Which in turn brings me to issue number 3.
3. The article mostly talks about the lawsuits but they do not actually relate to the game most of the time but to the treatment of Digital Homicide/the brothers itself, especially the Steam lawsuit is not at all tied to the game but the general harrassment of the studio/brothers. This, in essence, is not an article about Slaughtering Grounds but about the studio Digital Homicide/its lawsuits.

What to do from here

This leads to the solution I would like to proprose: delete this article/redirect to a new article on Digital Homicide. The information in the article is thourougly researched and has relevance, just not for Slaughtering Grounds but the studio itself. So, take everything you have worked on so far and put it in the new article on Digital Homicide, put in some new information (history of the company, other lawsuits/incidents with other games, a list of games released, most of which you have already) and renominate the article.

From what I can tell, you created that article in 2016 but it was redirected to the game by you in 2019. I would argue the other way around, the game is not relevant outside of the lawsuit and does not merit an own article, at least it can (in my mind) never reach GA level, as their is not enough coverage about it outside of the lawsuit. As your research here points out, a lot of the lawsuits, especially against the Steam users, are not tied to the game. In turn, I would conclude that Digital Homicide should be restored and enriched with the research you conducted here.

In short, you did good research on a relevant topic, you just tackled it from the wrong direction. Keep up the good work!--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)