Talk:The Sims Online/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 08:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: NatwonTSG2 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll review this article for reasons so--NatwonTSG2^Talk 01:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Review

I'm just going use how what I think what this article and what doesn't so.

• Well written: I think this article is pretty well-written however, I would recommend you to do something with the gameplay like adding a summary of the main purposes of the game and accolades section in which you could either add it to the review template or merge it with a similar section.
• Verifiable: Yes, all texts has been verify by a reliable source but, I would also recommend you to add the primary sources sub-section in the references section and also that Forbes article, kinda bother me since Forbes is considered an generally unreliable source so.
• Stable: No recent sight of an edit war in here.
• illustrated: I would add more images to illustrated the developers (if possible) and another image for gameplay.

Also for additional notes, you could also ask me any questions about the article or help me with my nomination (since you counted as the reviewer to my article so) NatwonTSG2 (talk) 00:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Think I've addressed or commented on Just some responses:

• Thanks for accepting this GAN review. Just to let you know, it's not necessary to tit-for-tat for GANs and you are never obliged to return a review. If you are not comfortable reviewing what is admittedly a pretty massive article, you can always nominate the article for a second opinion.
• I agree that having a general description of the game's objective is useful in the Gameplay section and have added that in.
• Migrated the Accolades section to the template.
• Per WP:VGIMAGES, adding a second screenshot of a game requires a much stronger rationale for inclusion. Is there an element of gameplay that isn't depicted visually in the article that you think has a very strong case for illustration? Adding an image of Will Wright is nice but not entirely necessary; something that I can definitely think about following the review.
• I understand your point about WP:FORBESCON. I am fine to dispense with two of those citations. I would argue that Tassi has subject matter expertise per WP:EXPERTSPS being published in other reliable video game outlets as seen here and his articles are a comfortable inclusion.

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh thank you for discussing about some not-necessary stuff and my requests being made. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 12:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

All good! Let me know if you have further comments. You may like to do a spot check of a few sources to verify that the text in the article corroborates them. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is my spot check:

• 25: Y
• 34: Y
• 61: N
• 64: Y
• 65: Y
• 69: N
• 116: Y
• 119-120: Y

And also:

• Replace 1 August to 1 August 2008

NatwonTSG2 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify - what were the issues with sources 61 and 69? Also, 1 August can be specified as the sentence starts with a preceding eveny from the same year. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

So 61 is a blog post from the game while 69 is just five hours gameplay of the game. Both sources are next to other sources which share some similarity to these sources which include for 60 and 61: the fact The Sims Online is ending and being replaced as EA-Land and for 68 and 69: why are you citing gameplay footage and while looking for clues, I kinda realized why you're using it so however, what with the interview source (68)? NatwonTSG2 (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

These are WP:PRIMARY sources to make straightforward assertions of fact about the development and closure of the game. They are already supported by other secondary sources. Can you be more specific about what issues you are seeing with the sources? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

68 is a podcast transcript that features Dr. Lowood. Its content is therefore useful and reliable only on the basis that it captures the views of the subject of the text. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

These were my only issues with these sources so the sources get to stay but, fortunately or unfortunately there not any problems for me to classify or changing and the rater show that your article is ready to pass as a good article so for now, I'm archived this review. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 22:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)