Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Automonopoli/1

Automonopoli

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept per discussion of the GA criteria. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was listed as GA in 2014. It is well written, but the structure of the article does not conform to the MOS. This diverts a clearer focus on information about the gameplay and reception of the title. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist MOS failure. However, the material is here to where, if someone were willing to put in the effort, could likely bring the article back to GA status fairly easily. It's all a matter of organization. NegativeMP1 17:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vrxces and NegativeMP1: which part of the GA criteria, or for that matter the MOS, does this article not conform to? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say 1b in the context of the deviation from the WP:VG MOS in not following the conventional structure of gameplay, development and release, and reception. But now that I look at it more, the sources are not that great either. [9] is a review of the official Leisure Genius version. [8] is news about the Leisure Genius version with a passing mention of past actions. [6] is literally just a comic and bizarre promotional blurb. [3] is used to suggest that the developers marketed the game as having artificial intelligence, when that wording is not used in the citation. The article itself acknowledges the game received only one full-length review. It's still likely notable but I don't know, the good writing sort of masks what isn't a particularly strong article in terms of its layout, broad coverage, and use of sources. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is nothing in the GA criteria 1b about adhering to standard section titles. The section titles in this article are appropriate for what it is, not a standard video game with reviews and development, but the historical summation of unauthorized software from 1983, broken into its original distribution and subsequent legal actions. Not seeing the issue there. Re: sources, they are fine for how they're being used, either as primary sources or as follow-up on the game's legacy. That it doesn't have many reviews underscores my point about it not being a traditional game (see my original GA review). If the issue is notability, that's a matter for AfD, not here, and I reckon it'll be kept. czar 15:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The VGMOS section structures, much like the pirate code, are more like guidelines than rules. And a case like this article is perfectly set up to be an exception - this is probably not notable as a game, its notability is really as a matter of a law / public relations / activism. So the VGMOS section headers are only questionably applicable anyway. SnowFire (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.