Talk:Video game controversies/GA1
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: PresN (talk · contribs) 05:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I've looked through this article, and I'm going to have to fail the GAN review. Ignoring the fact that you haven't edited the article much at all- which doesn't inspire confidence that you can fix big issues with it- there's some severe structural problems with the article as it stands. This is set up as an article, but there are several sections that devolve into poorly laid out lists- for example, the "US publicized incidents" section is just bullet points followed by a paragraph of explanation; that wouldn't be proper formatting for a list, much less an article that should be mostly composed of flowing prose. That section also doesn't seem to have any organization other than chronological order for video-game related controversies, such as grouping by type/theme.
In fact, quite a lot of the article sections tend to devolve into WP:PROSELINE single-sentence paragraphs of whatever controversy happened right when the article was edited. There's no cohesion- just a list of incidents/studies/whatever. There are also large chunks of the "Theories of negative effects of video games" and "Theories of positive effects of video games" sections that don't have citations, either.
Basically, this article has a lot of information. But it's really missing some sort of organizational structure- something that makes it an article about the topic of "Video game controversies", not just a big, semi-sorted pile of video game controversies. The article as it stands needs to be almost completely rewritten, even if it uses the same sources, so I don't think it's close enough to GA to put on hold. --PresN 05:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thank thee for thy opinion and thy policy about the WP:Proseline. Recently, even before reading thy review, I have been adding sources to avoid giving in undue weight, and, after reading thy review, I was just fixing this article, so, after it is done, hopefully, it will meet the criteria once again. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 08:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)