Talk:Knytt

Assessment
I honestly am so confused why you think this is a Start-class article, the only part of it that's remotely got any detail is the reception section, arguably the least important part of an article to help the reader understand what the game even is.. Looking at the reviews, the gameplay is definitely incomplete, just the briefest summary of what the game is. Multiple pieces of information are uncited, including release date and the game's plot, and it's not because they can't be cited. The solution isn't to fight against the Stub assessment, it's to ensure the article you made isn't missing vital information, the most basic info a reader would expect to find, and make sure it's all cited. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Per WP:Content assessment, a Stub class article meets none of these criteria: A useful picture or graphic; Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic; A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic; Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article. The article has ALL of these criteria satisfied, besides maybe #3 (but Reception can still stand on its own, even if barebones). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would highly dispute that any of the subheadings, save reception, even brush up against being complete. I have only the barest idea of how this game plays, and quite frankly, I don't know why you're choosing to argue about the quality assessment of the article instead of addressing any of the issues another editor has pointed out with it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Simply containing subheadings that can be expanded is sufficient to mark something as above Stub class, regardless of how much content's in them. Stub class articles are literally just a few lines to a paragraph, they are way smaller than you seem to assume they are.
 * And well, I will probably work on it more in the future when I have more time. Wikipedia is a WP:VOLUNTEER service, and we shouldn't be discouraging articles from being made just because they are short right now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I never said that you shouldn't make the article, I said that you've spent more time arguing why it is Start-class instead of improving the article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)