Talk:Dwarf Fortress/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Teancum (talk · contribs) 14:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing the article over the next few days. Below you will find the standard GAN criteria, along with a list of issues I have found. As criteria pass, a or will be replaced with a . Below the criteria you'll see a list of issues I've found. Feel free to work on them at any time. I will notify you when I'm done checking over the article. At that time I'll allow the standard one week for fixes to be made.

Criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   There are a few disambig links and an external link in the prose. All but the official site in the External links section should be removed per WP:ELNO and WP:ELMAYBE

Marginal, and I thought about it myself. I've removed the links for similicity, but I must say an argument can be made for their inclusion, and I believe has on the talk page. ResMar 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Dabs have been handled. ResMar 20:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

Argument below. ResMar 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   The entire gameplay section is completely unsourced. There are too many primary sources sources, and multiple of those lead to wikis are forums, which are never considered reliable. There are several things which need sourcing throughout the article such as "Losing is fun."

I'll attach the reference in a bit, this particular one is simple. ResMar 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a few references to the section regarding legends mode. However, they are from the development log, as I could not find any reliable third-party sources that described it in detail. Metagame (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The rationale for File:Dwarf Fortress logo.png is poor and should be expanded, particularly the purpose of use and replaceability. Also, why is a more official logo not used?

I didn't upload the image, although I'm considering contacting Tarn and seeing if he can release a few images into commons so I can slap them into the article. ResMar 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Y --Teancum (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Uploaded an image for fortress mode. Will get ones for adventure and possibly legends later. Never mind. Metagame (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

1. One should be sufficient unless there's a big difference visually between modes. A gameplay image helps folks wrap their head around the game a bit better, but at the same time we still have to be aware of WP:NFCC. --Teancum (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've switched out the logo in the infobox with the one from the official site. Metagame (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

1. B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   There is no gameplay image to demonstrate visual aspects for the article.

See above, although this is not strictly necessary. ResMar 17:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

 On hold — In general my main concern is the lack of sourcing in the gameplay section and minimizing primary sources. The other things can be fixed rather easily, but I'm hesitant to even hold the article as it may be difficult to find sourcing. You can sort through a reliable sources search I've just run for info, however, and might find something good. I'll put it on hold for now and give you a week for updates. If no work is done in that time I'll have to fail the article. If you need more time past that you just need ask. If I see sourcing appear I will look more closely at the prose, which I have not done yet since the sourcing alone can fail the article. --Teancum (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Gameplay requires a citation, and if it does, I'll have to murder that section wholesale because, frankly, there are none. Dwarf Fortress is an arcane game. There is no two-page gameplay summarazation on Gamespot, no reliably referenced gameplay summarazation to snippet from. At the same time, it is also extremely complex - one of the most complex games ever created - and so requires a very detailed gameplay section, especially since it consists of four different parts (world generation, fortress mode, adventure mode, legends mode).

The problem with primary resources is similarly weighed. Most of the game's press coverage consists of interviews with the creator by various magazines and websites. In fact, the only non-interview source I've seen is the New York Times one, which is written as prose instead. Similarly, there is no independent press coverage, no summation, no articles and no sources nearly so detailed as Tarn's own development notes and site information. In writing Final Fantasy XIII or other non-independent article, there is a bevy of independent sources to reference because writers and reviewers hung on every word of its development, reviewed it thoroughly, and continued to track the studio for news to its status. A long-term project, independent project like Dwarf Fortress receives little mention beyond occasional "what a novelty" quips. Most of the sources mentioned in your search consist of two or three paragraph summarizations of the game of little value.

Finally there are the usually unsuitable references. These I will go over in order:

• [1] This I mean to replace, but have not yet located where Adams originally describes his numbering scheme.
• [2] This is an illustration of the kinds of crazy convoluted schemes people come up with for the game, and serves to give basis to that and only that in the associated paragraph. Perhaps replaceable if I can track down something more "reliable".
• [3] Once more, a reference to a community activity summarized on a community page. Used to illustrate the depth of a single sentance in the associated paragraph.
• [4] Same; there is no official mod list, and no external summarization of it either, so I must turn, once more, to a community page.
• [5] Demonstration of tags, a technical subject that I haven't found another description of. I'll look, but I doubt it will come up.

ResMar 17:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Gameplay does indeed require citation just like any other section (aside from plot). Typically people use bits of reviews, previews and interviews in order to reliably source claims. Whatever you can glean, please do so. --Teancum (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but it's impossible to summarize while covering all bases on what you call "reliable" sources. I take this shenanigan as a demonstration of what's wrong with Wikipedia these days. I could probably get Tarn Adams to send you an e-mail certifying that all of the information contained within the gameplay section is certified by word of god to be accurate, and several people on the forum have already said it's 100%. Overcitation is almost as dangerous as undercitation in certain cases, and this is one of them. You and I both know that information contained therein is completely true, but you hold me to the standard of using reliable references to absolutely prove it, because there just might be differences between the game played by Rock, Paper, Shotgun and the game played by the rest of us "unreliable" people. Most independent games make their premise known by being extremely simple. This one does it by being mind-bogglingly complex. The consequence is that only an extended summary will do it justice, one not present in reliable resources; ergo it is impossible to do it justice, and I'm left with a Catch 22: fail referencing, or fail completeness. ResMar 19:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The solution you say is to fail coverage to satisfy reliability. When I wrote the article I made a conscious decision to do just the opposite, and I stand by it now. ResMar 19:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you in some respect that's how Wikipedia works. Personally I'd say the article is better suited as a B-Class article as sources that don't pass Wikipedia's criteria for reliability can be kept. I have a few pet articles in this same boat, and I'd rather leave correct sources and not have a GA than the other way around. It's your decision of course, but when going for GAN it's gotta meet the standards. --Teancum (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, I always follow the GAN review pages, so any comments can be made in one place. --Teancum (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've given this some more thought, and decided that the best solution would be to reference the entire section to Getting Started with Dwarf Fortress: Learn to play the most complex video game ever made. While I don't exactly have the book on hand, I'm confident all of the information pertaining to this section is contained therein. If you would like I can try and confirm with the author. ResMar 19:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I've got better things to do than be stuck in place for idiosyncratical reasons. I've referenced the section to the book. ResMar 00:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I still have several concerns regarding the wiki and forums references, and the new Google doc. The wiki and forum are still unreliable, even given the context. The new Google doc reference has no author, so there's no way to verify that it came from a reliable source. I have concerns about sourcing it in general anyway. To be direct I will not pass the article if the sourcing issues remain, as they fail Wikipedia:Verifiability. I've requested a second opinion to have another member evaluate the article. --Teancum (talk) 01:45, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I would note that official wiki and stiff forum posts are reliable primary sources. As one can see, the game articles are normally referenced to manuals and gameplay dialogs, so I wouldn't say that this article is sub-par in its sourcing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened to a week? The google doc is Adam's dev notes for 31.0, which got a whole doc because it was a 9 month or so break between releases. Adam's official forum postings are word of god and thereby referable. ResMar 12:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I came off wrong. There's still plenty of time. Take as much time as you need to reliably source the article. I just wanted to be clear that the sources are issues. Even as primary sources the fact that they can change at any time (particularly the wiki) makes them unstable. --Teancum (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Cryptic C62. It may not have been the author's intention, but this article comes across as a promotional piece, not an encyclopedia article. The problem manifests itself in the pretentious language used throughout the article, which presents Dwarf Fortress as though it's the most amazing wonderful incredible thing in the history of the universe:

• "Dwarf Fortress is modeled on a complex and realistic simulation engine that belies its comparatively primitive ASCII graphics."

Yeah, it is. Guy has a PhD in mathematics and went all out with the physics, I'm rm realistic.

• "The game has ... extremely deep gameplay ... extremely steep learning curve ... extremely challenging..." Are you shooting for some kind of record here? "Extremely" is not the only adverb in the English language.

To do. ResMar 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• "unhappy circumstances and unfortunate accidents" The purpose of Wikipedia is not to express opinions on whether events are "unhappy" or "unfortunate". See MOS:OPED.

Eh, now you're getting sappy. ResMar 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• "an apt motto for the game itself" And whose opinion is it that the motto is apt? Yours?

To do. ResMar 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

And that's just from the lead. The Origins and release section is also problematic. Much of it is not even relevant to the game itself; it serves only to characterize the game's author, an effort which should not be made in this article. "Inquisitive, withdrawn, and having moved between state lines many times in his youth..." is the worst offender. That doesn't belong in any encyclopedia article, it belongs in a cheesy post-mortem documentary.

This problem may stem from the over-reliance on first-party sources. While it may be true that Adams' forum posts may be factually accurate, he has a very clear bias and conflict of interest. This article needs to be written based on what others have reported about the topic, not based on what the author has reported on the topic. In its current state, I honestly don't think that the article would survive WP:AFD. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner. ResMar 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Will hopefully get to this today or tomorrow. ResMar 17:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Bridies After giving the disputed gameplay section a once over, some thoughts:

• The nominator was originally correct to assume that stuff in a gameplay section -if it's descriptive (see below)- can be implicitly sourced to the primary source (game), but:
  • It's too long and detailed. I'd question whether the detailed examples are necessary, for instance. Articles are supposed to focus on real world history and critical reception and while I understand that's problematic here, the gameplay section shouldn't eclipse the reception section to the extent that it does. The game is particularly complicated, fair enough, but reading through this doesn't make it seem any more difficult to understand than a 4X game, say. The fact that there are no secondary sources discussing the gameplay in any detail suggests that this level of depth is not necessary to understand the gist of the game (which is what the gameplay section is supposed to convey). If one wants to "do justice" to the fact that this is "mind-bogglingly" complex, what's needed are secondary sources saying so, not an overcompensating gameplay section and thus imbalanced article.
  • Opinions. If one is going to insert words such as "important" or "vastly" into this section, to make a point that a particular gameplay element is important, difficult, whatever, there has to be a specific source. It's not enough to generally cite a book you apparently don't have (have you read it?). And there has to be specific page numbers for specific opinions if we're using a full-length book. bridies (talk) 04:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from DreamGuy Article unfortunately does not come close to a good article per Wikipedia standards. Love the game, but encyclopedia articles need to focus on content that is notable and reliable sourced, which the vast majority of these is not. Something written by an encyclopedia author and not just fans of the game would be about 1/10th the size of the current article or shorter. Google docs are wholly unreliable in every sense of the word and cannot be used on Wikipedia in any capacity. Any content sourced solely to forum posts or wikis should be removed completely as not notable, and anything sourced to the programmer's home page should similarly be removed unless it can be proven to be absolutely essential. Encyclopedias cover what the outside world finds notable, not what fans of a game think. The NYT piece should be the main source used for he article, since the source is mainstream and well-respected. Other acceptable sources would be the gaming publications. It's also quite obviously slanted in favor of the game instead of being objective coverage of the topic. I won't be immediately gutting the article to make it comply with our policies, but I had to agree with those saying the article fails good article criteria quite dramatically. DreamGuy (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd go quite as far as DreamGuy, but the Dwarf Fortress wiki can't be considered a reliable source. The other big problem I see with the article is that the Fortress Mode section is much too big and violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

✗ Failing - this GAN due to lack of progress and current comments leaning towards a fail. I have no bias against renomination should improvements be made. --Teancum (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)