Talk:All Ghillied Up

GAN Prep
After realising that this article is a GAN and as the primary author of the article, I thought I would mention more sourcing to expand the article, though I do not know if I will have time to do this myself before the review. Firstly, the intial reception only includes one review. I did dig through some more reviews however I was unable to find another mention of the level. Though, I am certain it was mentioned in some more reviews that I did not get time to look over. Another source which could added is this YouTube video. Yes I am aware YouTube is generally unreliable as it is a WP:SPS however this video contains direct interviews with Alavi and the design leads which can be helpful to expand the development section. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 14:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I used Youtube as a source once in a good article, so I would encourage adding it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I will try to add it parts to the development section if I get the time. Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 01:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Concerns on this article's notability
I feel this page doesn't meet WP:N, not even close. Lots of this article is just cruft and the writing is very stretched to make it look like there's a lot of meat here on the surface. A total of 23 sources are used here, and the only ones that actually offer significant, in-depth, independent coverage are Kotaku and Official PlayStation Magazine UK. The rest of it is just passing mentions that don't constitute significance: And these are only for the Reception, I didn't bother checking the rest of the article since the reception is what matters the most. With the majority of sources here only having brief mentions of the level in question, I fail to see how this somehow meets WP:N. None of them offer anything significant and barely any actual critical analysis (just them saying "the level is good" isn't critical commentary). I can definitely see this being a useful redirect for readers, but certainly not as an entire article. I'm not proposing deletion, I am proposing a redirect. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 00:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PC Gamer — A single passing mention that offers no critical commentary. Nothing significant or in-depth.
 * IGN — Listicle, has a single paragraph on it. Not significant or in-depth.
 * Ars Technica — There's a paragraph dedicated to it, but it's talking more about the remaster than the level itself. Not significant or in-depth enough.
 * Digital Trends — A passing mention in an announcement that is for the remaster. Announcements do not help establish notability.
 * Game Revolution — Not even about the level, just how to unlock the suit that is based on it. It has, at most, a sentence or two on the level itself. Not significant.
 * The Telegraph — Another listicle with only a few sentences relating to the level. Not significant enough.
 * Digital Spy — Yet another listicle that only has a few sentences related to it. Not significant enough.
 * Techspot — Not sure about its reliability since it isn't listed at WP:VG/S. Even if it was, the article is not about the level and it is only mentioned twice in passing. Not at all in-depth or significant.
 * GamesRadar+ — Article, while long, isn't even about All Ghillied Up, it is written for a different level entirely that compares it to AGU once or twice. Not significant or in-depth.
 * LADbible — Reader poll that doesn't offer any critical commentary on it. Not even sure this source is reliable at all.


 * Redirect to Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare: This level has not received significant coverage from reliable sources. None of the provided sources are usable. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 00:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There has to be a point where you stop and think that if 23 separate sources wrote about it, it's probably notable. Whether it has that many significant pieces of coverage doesn't matter, as long as it's sufficient to cover it indepth per GNG. There isn't an arbitrary threshold if it can sum up the entire level without missing detail - which it definitely can. The fact that there are indeed some listicles mixed in with it is WP:BATHWATER. There have been plenty of smaller articles deemed acceptable in the past, such as Dust2. This article is at least as independently notable if not moreso and played a large role in video game development going forward illustrating the potential of non-linear missions.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "23 sources wrote about it" is neither true nor accurate; "20-ish sources mention it" more accurately reflects the lack of significant coverage. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  00:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, GNG does not require that every source covers it to a significant degree, as long as there are enough to construct the article without lacking details. There are at least a couple that feature significant, in depth coverage, which is certainly enough. The others just add to its notability.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't require every single source to be sigcov, but it requires enough sigcov to justify a spinoff from the parent article. You mention Dust2, but the sources there are plentiful in their sigcov about the map's making of, developpement, history, impact, evolution, and news about Valve's handling of it. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;
 * The fact that is has been mentioned by separate people in the gaming press as "one of the best stealth missions in games" and "one of the best levels in gaming history" isn't enough to justify a spinoff discussing it? Might as well make it a referendum on all video game levels then, because if this one is insufficiently notable, then there is likely no level that is. That strikes me as ridiculous and an overbroad interpretation of GNG.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the fact that sources mention it as "one of the best stealth missions in games" does not make a subject automatically pass English Wikipedia's inclusion threshold, which requires significant coverage, i.e. independent reliable sources publishing dedicated writing literally ABOUT the level, not mentioning it in comparison to other topics or among listicles. You can look at Dust2's depth of coverage for an example. If you find articles about other levels where you have a concern about them passing the threshold for inclusion, you should discuss these on their talk page or AfD, not here. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  00:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ...Which there are. You're just using an arbitrary threshold of significant coverage to argue for redirection. The sheer amount of mentions prove it is notable when combined with the significant coverage. The fact is, it's not entirely trivial mentions (although I'd argue that some of the above that are purportedly claimed as "trivial" are in fact not.)ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't really made an argument in favor or against redirection (yet), just trying to explain why your perspective that "23 sources wrote about it" is not representative of the reality of the actual sigcov about the article subject. Ben · Salvidrim!   &#9993;  01:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to its own subsection but needs a significant culling. This article is an example of what happens when you give each inconsequential opinion and quotation its own sentence. In reality it could be condensed down to "All Ghillied Up has been considered by many game journalists to be the best in the game, and several have asserted that it may be the best FPS level created." And then add 23 sources if it so warrants. The simple fact is this game received hundreds of reviews, and certain guns, certain characters, certain features, certain maps of the the game will repeatedly be mentioned in those sources. That does not grant notability to the level outside of the game. That isn't to say it couldn't gain notability, but it would require prolonged discussion over time (maybe with awards, comparison with sequels, other FPS) to establish its unique position. Koncorde (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just as an additional, the "No Russian" article probably warrants a tidy up to focus on what was significant about it. I am not sure it, again, is discussed naturally out of the context of the games but I can see how it's relatively controversial content and the response to to would grant more immediate notability (though long term is questionable, lots of games have controversial content but we don't spin off articles for them). Koncorde (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We seem to have a bit of a Russian nesting doll situation going on for that matter it seems, with a sub article for a sub section Controversies surrounding Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and then a sub article of that. Koncorde (talk) 03:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes not every single source used is in-depth article dedicated to the entire topic at hand. But the coverage I have presented above is certainly enough for the topic to warrant its own article and meet WP:GNG. Moreover, there is likely more coverage found in print sources that I have yet been unable to find (due to it being harder to search through them by their very nature and paywalls). Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 19:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to its own subsection Agree with Koncorde, in short, as well as the general analysis of sourcing present. This should be tagged as a proposed merger. -- ferret (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but not opposed to redirect On purely GNG lines, I think the topic can pass muster on deep review of sourcing. That said, and I think everyone who is writing these articles about fictional items, levels, etc, need to start deeply considering this, just because something can scrap by GNG and be considered notable doesn't mean it strictly needs an article, if it fits within another topic without undue weight. And GNG still allows, though we rarely exercise it and rely on "x number of sources", the ability for the community to reach a consensus that something doesn't belong as a standalone topic despite an availability of sourcing. The GAN for this article, were I to pick it up, I would still fail at this time. The Development section is woefully weak. Sourcing that helps establish GNG is not adequately used, particularly the book sources. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to its own subsection - another scenario where it’s mostly passing mentions with long-drawn out bloated prose in an attempt to justify a spinout. Another reminder that we are not a wikia. Sergecross73   msg me  02:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now, I am leaning towards weak keep. It is an iconic level from Call of Duty and it is recognised by RS (albeit in passing mention). In addition to OPM and Kotaku, I would argue that PC Gamer's coverage is also significant. There is also a 20-minute documentary that can be used to fill up the development section (but it hasn't been used in the article yet). Gamasutra also used this level to discuss game pacing,, which may be used to improve the reception section a bit better. However, I do agree with most of our editors above. The article is stretched too long, and mostly filled with cruft, and I believe that in its current state, not much is lost if it is redirected or reduced to a section. However, I believe that there is potential for this to be a standalone article. OceanHok (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stongest possible Keep. I have researched this topic at length for hours upon hours I can confidently assert that the topic does indeed meet WP:GNG. Firstly, I believe the source outline provided by Namcokid47 is an unfair and inaccurate summary of the actual coverage of the topic. I am going to go over all the source that address the topic:
 * 1) A dedicated article from Kotaku of the level including comaprison of the level to the real word location itself (Pripyat, Ukraine)..
 * 2) Another full in-depth, dedicated article from Kotaku of the level
 * 3) A full in-depth article from PlayStation Official Magazine – UK (Something I came across by chance when researching another topic and considering a lot of print magazine are behind paywalls and there is about 13 years of magazine produced from the level's release to today I am certain there is more coverage out there in print magazine I have not found yet).
 * 4) Half a page of dedicated coverage in The Art of War Video Games
 * 5) Two pages of dedicated coverage in Playing War: Military Video Games After 9/11.
 * 6) A dedicated article discussing the level's development from PC Gamer (To call this a "A single passing mention that offers no critical commentary. Nothing significant or in-depth." is inaccurate).
 * 7) A sizeable amount of coverage in Official Xbox Magazine review of CoD 4.
 * 8) Two sizable paragraphs in PC Gamer
 * 9) A paragragh in IGN
 * 10) Two sizable paragraphs in Ars Technica
 * 11) Two paragraphs in Techspot
 * 12) Three paragraphs in Digital Spy
 * 13) About three paragraphs in GamesRadar+
 * 14) There is signifcant coverage from Gamasutra (found by OceanHok) which is yet to be used in the article. In the first article there is the three paragraph discussing the topic
 * 15) In second article there 2 pages worth is an in-depth breakdown of a 10 minute segment of the level breaking it down almost minute by minute (certainly in depth and significant)
 * 16) There is also a 20-minute documentary from the main creators of the level which is not been used in the article yet (I would first have to transcribe it and then quote it once I do to use it to accurately reference it. I have also contacted the creator about possibly releasing some screenshots of the developers under a free image license).
 * 17) A paragraph in The Telegraph
 * 18) There is also brief coverage throughout Digital Trends, GameRevolution , PlayStation Lifestyle , and Techradar
 * 19) Additionally, LADbible voted it as the best Call of Duty mission  and IGN readers voted the level as the most memorable Call of Duty moment of all time.
 * LADBible and IGN reader polls need removed, as that is WP:USERG content. -- ferret (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, striked. Any other comments regarding my comment, ? Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 22:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Starting at source 9, IGN, and down is trivial mention, IGN is almost nothing. For techspot, it's almost dishonest to call that "two paragraphs" of detailed coverage. Same for Digital Spy, "3" paragraphs but half is just saying what it was, that it was 'great game design', and no other analysis. GamesRadar+ is the same, bare sentences "greatest level" with no analysis. Ars Technica is somewhat usable. The first Gamasutra isn't really helpful, but the second one is. There's a few weak sources above source 8, but the heavy sources are in that top 8. I've struck my redirect above, but I'm also still not opposed to redirecting. Call it a neutral. I left more comments above. -- ferret (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. I will try to implement the Gamasutra and book sources more when I can get the time to help expand the article more. I just wish there was an easy way to search through a reliable print magazine archive like looking for the search term "All Ghillied Up" as more print coverage probably exists but all hard to find and behind paywalls (I found the PSM article by chance). But I will probably hold off on another side fictional element/location that I was thinking about making in to an article now at least until I can find more coverage (it was Wuhu island if you were curious). Regards  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 00:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Spy-Circle's comment above, I have a hard time understanding the argument that this subject lacks significant coverage. The most I've seen people demonstrate is that some of the sources cover multiple topics in the same article.  But there are also articles entirely devoted to the subject of this article.  And there are a sizable number--and certainly enough to qualify as "significant" IMHO--of articles out there addressing the subject of this article.  So, for that reason, I think it should be kept.  That said, if the community wants to have a discussion about enacting a bright-line policy against articles about specific in-game elements, I'd be in favor of that.  I think there may be compelling reasons to draw a bright line against stand-alone articles about in-universe or in-game elements.  But I don't think that the GNG are the way to address that issue, at least with respect to this particular article. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per excellent source by source analysis by Spy-cicle. Haleth (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

New image
I know this may seem really pedantic but I've just uploaded a slightly different version of the gameplay screenshot used as I felt it helped illustrate more what the image was trying to convey by having more soldiers in the picture. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Having said that, the re-size makes the soldier on the left almost imperceptible anyway... Wikibenboy94 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I chose the first one since it does not have the green "Cpt. MacMillan" text which may confuse unfamiliar readers. I say what you mean about trying demonstrate more soldiers but once it is reduced hard to tell either way. Also one thing I realised is that both images have the YT uploaders watermark (maybe if I get enough time at some point I'll be able to upload an ideal screenshot no green text, clear enough soldiers, no water mark).  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 15:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits
@Spy-cicle While I still don't agree with the Level content section in terms of highlighting lesser moments, I will accept if it was written this way during GAN; however, the prose about the "Recon By Fire" level wasn't. The usage of "strongly compared" and "numerous similarities" feels a bit excessive and less neutral for what is a brief mention in the sources that simply call it very reminiscent or a next-generation version of "All Ghillied Up". At the very least, the sources don't mention any context of the level that we have included (which I think can be assumed is similar to AGU from the comparisons), with the exception of the gameplay systems and enemy AI. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I would not saying using those terms in this context is overstating or excessive so many RSs compared All Ghillied Up to that level with its numerous specific simliarities. Given this I think it is fair to briefly outline it in the body.  Spy-cicle💥   Talk? 16:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)