Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Sims Online/1

The Sims Online

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: Delist for now. Once issues are addressed, a new GAN can happen. 48 JCL 14:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nomination for feedback and review. With all respects to the efforts of the reviewer, the GA process was faulty. The FAC nomination prompted comments that the article had "significant" issues. Therefore it is probably worth checking where along the journey this article is at from experienced editors. Thanks in advance for your help. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lot of sources need to be tagged with BSN or FV. 48JCL TALK 14:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Came back for a sec, shouldn’t some sections be tagged with {{Non-primary source needed}}? Lot of ea-blogs 48JCL TALK 21:05, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vrxces, based on the large amounts of primary sources, should this not be delisted? x q 20:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See thoughts below. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. From what I can tell there's been three issues raised by people that have seen the article in this process so far:

(1) Inadequate sourcing in the gameplay section due to a reliance on the game guide without page citations. This was the only specific feedback raised in FAC that and definitely something that can be worked on.
(2) Overuse of primary sources. This is understandable and coverage could be supplemented with existing sources. But the sources in the article really are generally the sum of the surviving coverage on the game, in my opinion. It would be good to receive greater feedback on where the use of the primary sources is not appropriate given that I would imagine a primary source would be appropriate to substantiate that the publishers as author and creator of the game undertook a certain action at a certain time.
(3) Verifiability. I would appreciate some advice on specific examples where the citations fail to substantiate the content, as none to date have been given.

I did expect that having nominated the article for review that it would be delisted. I will say that whilst it's nobody's task to review quite a large article, certainly not anyone's here, it's a shame it's been months and there's been very little in-depth feedback on the article on peer review, good article nomination, featured article nomination, and now reassessment. But these things understandably happen with large articles which are difficult and time-consuming to review, so no shade to anyone that's helped in that journey so far. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to give some more feedback here. As you're interested in a FAC, I'll note non-GA things too. I know virtually nothing about VG sourcing, or to go through the article from top to bottom (sorry). I've checked two sources, and tagged them as not verifying content, which makes me believe the article should be delisted for now. Most of my other comments don't relate strongly to the GA criteria:

The lead feels a bit intimidating, as the paragraphs are quite long. Can we split it (non-GA)
alts are missing for images (non-GA)
To commemorate the closure, EA developers held a 'See You Soon' party where players congregated until the shutdown of the game --> in-game or real-life party?
I wonder if MMOG is a more well-known word than the non-abbreviated version?
The reception section contains too many quotes. You may want to use Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections to improve this section. The large number of quotes make the section difficult to parse; sentences are often too long.
I would not dedicate that much time in the legacy section to the people involved. Legacy is often about what other people think. It feels a bit repetitive to the reception section, as they simply reiterate what other people have already stated.
In 2011, EA published the online game The Sims Social on Facebook, which featured similar social networking features on the platform --> on which platform? The Sims or Facebook?
As part of this process, several features were introduced into the game, including the introduction of the ability for players to upload custom content into the game, --> the second introduction isn't needed (you could say including the ability).
Simoleans are the main commodity in The Sims Online, used to purchase lots and objects and design buildings. --> Are they purchasing "design buildings" or designing buildings? If you switch it, you remove the ambiguity (used to design buildigns and buy lots and objects).
Two tips on general copyediting: the first one is to read the article out loud. Are there sentences you stumble over, because they're too complex and long? For an article with a generic audience, your average sentence is quite tough (see [[User:Phlsph7/Readability.js for instance). The other one is to ask ChatGPT to simplify (I usually ask it to improve flow and simplify in the same prompt).
In terms of verifiability: the best route forward is to go page hunting. Citing a 260-page book (cite 6) without a page number makes it very difficult to verify the content.

—Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the specific feedback, I appreciate it. I think this is all doable and something to follow-up on after the article is delisted, which I agree is appropriate at this point. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2024 (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.