Talk:The Club (Nickelodeon)/GA1

GA Review

I am failing this page, as it seems much too short and unreferenced.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this. GAs don't have a specific length. Have a look at Jeanne Calment which passed recently. That's shorter than this one. Normally, it's a good idea to find things in the article that could be improved and give the nominator a chance to improve them. The references seems plentiful as well. What's going on here? I might give this one a review myself later. how do you turn this on 15:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I meant there does not seem to be enough information.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Re

Here's a breakdown of where this is on the GA criteria:

• Well written

 Yes. Chronologically correct in history section, smooth, etc.

• Factually accurate and verifiable

 At least one ref in each section, up to 5 in one section

• Broad in coverage

 Yes, read note below.

Note: To the person who failed this on that criterion: If you've actually been in the game before, you'll realize this isn't nearly as big or popular as Club Penguin and Virtual Magic Kingdom, so it's kind of like a bigger person, in general, can eat more food than a skinny person. This is almost as much content we can have without failing the verifiability criterion.

• Neutral

 Yes, NPOV is completely undisputed.

• Stable

 Only occasional vandalism, which is reverted almost instantly, thus not affecting the stability of the article.

• Illustrated, if possible, by images

 Yes, but only fair use images. Free images are practically impossible to find for a copyrighted game.

This article has very few flaws, and should be passed as a GA. the event horizon (t • c) 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Outside comments from Someone another

Sorry but I'm not seeing a C-class article here let alone a suitable GA candidate. There's at least one whopping gap in information and a lot of the text is meaningless to an information gatherer. Some observations:

• There is no reception section. That isn't a slight problem it's a fatal flaw and would stop most videogame project members from rating this above start, let alone go anywhere else.
• Even though it is a website, would the videogame project's infobox not be more suitable? Regardless of whether it's a flashgame, a browsergame or whatever, it's still a videogame.
• There's a couple of tweaks needed in the citations, such as author name missing, a press release needs citing as one etc.

History

• The majority of this section is dangerously close to being proseline.
• "Construction of Nicktropolis began in November 2004," 'Development' would sit better than construction.
• "Nickelodeon's developers Mark Zadroga, Alex Westerman, Deborah Levine, Patrick Dorey, Sean McEvoy, and Jason Root," So who are these people? What are their roles? Their backgrounds? This is just a collection of forenames and surnames with no actual information.
• "using the TheoSDK and TheoAvatarSDK engines.[6][3] The game was launched in early 2006, and it had no advertising." A reader who doesn't eat and sleep games is not going to have a clue what a TheoSDK engine is. The only acutal information out of all this is that development began in Nov. 2004 and the game was released in early 2006.
• "On June 24, 2007, the game was featured in The New York Times, with a quote stating, "Pre-teenage viewers have a virtual playground to call their own." [8]" It's a throw-away quote anyway, is that all the article actually says about NT? Does it belong in history?
• 'Release history' does not contain enough bulk to warrant a sub-heading, what's there could be integrated with the other information.

Places

• Either this should be a gameplay section and actually contain gameplay data, or the gameplay section is completely missing and this is a separate section altogether.
• This falls into the classic trap (which virtually everyone falls into, I have too) of listing all of the elements of a particular aspect of a game rather than actually explaining what this all means. The vast majority of it is name-dropping which a reader can safely forget about instantly because they are given very little context.
• For instance: "The area is divided into 7 subsections, the first being the SpongeBob SquarePants area (Bikini Bottom) includes 7 rooms, which are the General Store, the Krusty Krab, The Reef, Conch Street, which is a portal to SpongeBob's house, Patrick's house, and Squidward's house." General store is fairly self-explanatory, but what's the Krusty Krab for? What do players do at The Reef? What happens when players visit Squidward? Actual information is needed, not empty lists.
• There's a lot of very short paragraphs here which could be condensed (though substantial rewriting is needed IMO, not just a little tidy-up), along with some more sub-headings with very little content.

Sponsorship

• The large chunk of quote could just as easily be summarized in contributors' own words.
• Doesn't this belong in history?

So in the big picture: of the three major sections which virtually all video game articles should contain (gameplay, development/history and reception), two are missing entirely and one contains relatively little suitable info (history). One of the further sections needs a major overhaul (places) and the other could probably do with merging (sponsorship). Realistically this isn't a GA candidate, it would be unfair to expect the article's contributors to do this kind of work within a week. The videogame project's peer reviews and assessment dept. are there if further advice is needed and I'd heartily recommend them. Someoneanother 10:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Note I've got my wires crossed and posted this on a long-dead GA review, will tweak and cross post to a new GA review. Someoneanother 15:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)