Talk:Claw machine/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 06:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll have a review posted within the next few days. The big ugly alien ( talk ) 06:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This article needs significant work before meeting the good article criteria, specifically the requirement of broad coverage. I'm going to end the review so this can take place. The article can be renominated at any time, once the issues listed below are fixed. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 21:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Well-written

The sources pass the basic standards for GA, but they're far from ideal. Right now, it looks like the article was written backward. The best sources are the ones that cover the topic or a specific aspect in general, instead of trying to tie together disparate ideas into an article (which risks WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICKING). The article is also lacking in text-source integrity. In many cases, it's impossible to tell which citation connects to which facts. I wrote a few examples of this in the spot checks below.
 * Verifiable with no original research

Spot checks:
 * [6] Kubersky (2012) – The first use doesn't support "skill cranes". The second use doesn't support most of the claims.
 * [24] Min-ji (2017) – The first use doesn't support an increase in 2017, an increase from 20 to 1900, or mentions on social networks. The third use doesn't support the United States, South Africa, or Singapore.
 * [31] Edwards (2015) – Most of the claims in the first use are not supported.
 * [49] WAGM-TV (2016) – Good.

This article does not meaningfully cover the major aspects of claw machines. The vast majority of the content is about very specific aspects: their 21st century popularity (with a disproportionate focus on Asia), and the legal/"rigging" aspects. I'd expect the bulk of this article to be about their design, their operation and function, different variations, and general technical aspects, as well as a broader coverage of their history.
 * Broad in its coverage

The main problem is that the article fails WP:PROPORTION, as described above. Also, this isn't as serious an issue since the term is used in the sources, but "rigged" has a decidedly negative connotation and should be used more carefully, probably not in WP:WIKIVOICE.
 * Neutral

No recent disputes.
 * Stable

File:GIRL TRIES TO PICK UP PRIZE WITH A MINIATURE CRANE... is not a helpful image. It's difficult to discern that there's a claw machine at all, let alone what's going on in the image.
 * Illustrated


 * Thank you for your review, but I disagree with a lot of your assessment. These spot checks completely ignore the fact that those are not the only sources used at the ends of the sentences you mentioned. Ref 6 doesn't support the use of "skill cranes" because ref 5 does, and ref 6 doesn't support everything in that sentence because refs 36, 37, and 38, all of which appear the end of the sentence, support the rest. Ref 24 doesn't support the increase because ref 7 does and, again, it doesn't have to support the United States (ref 30), South Africa (ref 3), or Singapore (ref 57)—they show up in the order they're mentioned. It doesn't make sense to suggest a lack of text-source integrity when not all of the sources being used are being considered.


 * Moreover, the suggestion that the article was written backward seems to be based on the comments in the follow-up section about how the article fails to cover and that it places . This is completely reliant on subjective importance and the idea that "there must be sources". The emphasis placed on Asia is based on the emphasis placed by the sources on Asia, not the other way around. You also say that you would, but the onus falls on you to prove why those things are notable enough to be given more weight in the article than the aspects you consider undue, and you have not substantiated the reasons behind your expectations.


 * I only say all of this because you wrote that I can renominate, but the problem is that the issues outlined were already fixed by the time of review. I will take this to WT:GAN when I get the chance for a third opinion. ben ǝʇᴉɯ  20:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)