Talk:Lego Bionicle: The Legend of Mata Nui/GA1

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

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 11:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I think I'll take this one on. It's unusual to say the least, and looks like a fascinating read. If I haven't left anything by Sunday, please ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Quick drive-by comment: this article relies heavily on Did You Know Gaming, which from a cursory glance seems nowhere near reliable, Would definitely try and find better sources on this. Namcokid 47  (Contribs) 20:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it’s reliable, but especially in this context. It’s an in-depth video on the game that is the most extensive coverage available. As a journalist (BS Journalism, App State 2018), I found it to be an excellent piece of gaming journalism. Liam Robertson of DYKG is one of the people who actually uncovered the game’s development builds, so this was substantial journalistic legwork here.
 * As for usage, many of the citations that are used from the video here are an analysis of the game’s features, levels, plot, and bugs (as demonstrated in the opening two sections). As commentary, I think it certainly passes the standard, and aside from being accurate, no other sources covers the gameplay so comprehensively. I think the gameplay element sections, at minimum, are useful to the reader and are accurate and reliable.
 * The video’s fact-based claims come mainly from interviews with the game’s development team (primarily Darvell Hunt, along with other unnamed sources from Saffire). There are ten usages of DYKG outside of the early gameplay and story sections:


 * 1) The first usage, paired with citation 3, is that LEGO heavily promoted the game.
 * 2) The second usage is that the game was promoted in Cheerios cereal, on the BIONICLE website, and an exclusive mask was to be bundled.
 * 3) The third usage is a date the game began development.
 * 4) The fourth and fifth usages are coverage of the Maori scandal; other sources cover this area as well.
 * 5) The sixth usage is a direct claim made by Darvell Hunt (that he developed gameplay mechanic that Lego demanded the removal of)
 * 6) The seventh usage is again paired with citation 3, about working conditions.
 * 7) The eighth usage is from unnamed sources at Saffire that gave the real reason the game was cancelled.
 * 8) The ninth usage is a mention of a missing gameplay feature (the final boss).
 * 9) The tenth is a brief summary on the demise of Saffire
 * Of these, only a handful are claims of fact that Robertson makes without any corroboration - those would be 2, 3, 8, and 10. For what it is being used for here (primary an analysis of gameplay and functions, along with some development facts that come directly from people involved in the game’s development), I think it’s a sufficient and valuable resource. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with this. My issue with DYKG is that a large chunk of its content is user-submitted (which is an automatic red flag), and that there appears to be no actual staff whatsoever, which pretty much makes it fail WP:RELIABLE if you ask me. Is there any sort of developer interview out there with the team? I think that would be a lot more useful than a random YouTube video on the subject in question. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 23:05, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you are conflating the blog and the YouTube channel, which are effectively two separate entities. This video is not user-submitted in any way. It's the singular work a single author, Liam Robertson, that is published on the channel - but it's his video and his work. Rather than a random video, it's a work from someone with an actual history in game reporting. In fact, a previous discussion in WikiProject Video Games noted his credibility in the field of cancelled video games. It's all there in the thread, but Robertson is noted for his work on Nintendo Life (a reliable source). His track record in cancelled and unfinished video games is very strong. Here's some other sources that vouch for him:


 * 1) ComicBook.com says that he is "known for having scoops and reporting on them reliably in the past". ComicBook.com
 * 2) RedBull Games, a reliable source, notes him as "extremely informative" and mentions his "independent reports on unreleased games" and his "tremendous access to insider info".
 * 3) Eurogamer, a reliable source, favorably cited his video on the cancelled game Gnomageddon as an authoritative source on the subject.
 * 4) Digital Trends, a reliable source, noted him as having a strong track record in being accurate.
 * 5) IGN, a highly reliable source, also cites his work on this subject favorably and authoritatively.
 * 6) On Sonic Extreme, a good article that passed just last year, his work is cited authoritatively by IGN and Digital Trends; these two reliable sources, at minimum, find multiple of his videos on the subject authoritative.
 * 7) Kotaku, a reliable source, credits his work as authoritative on both Superman and BIONICLE.
 * 8) GameInformer, a reliable source, cites his work authoritatively.
 * I can find more citations if needed, but it is abundantly clear - at least to me - that Liam Robertson is clearly a reliable source and industry insider, especially so on the topic of unreleased games and Nintendo in general - this game qualifies as both. Toa Nidhiki05 00:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This review's become interesting. As such, I think I'll give the rough equivalent of a narrative verdict. Looking at it, and at the evidence you've presented as to the reliability of the journalist cited by Did You Know Gaming?, and the unusual circumstances surrounding this game, there is a strong case for passing this. I believe that had valid concerns, your answers have been quite satisfactory. I've looked through the article, and don't see any glaring grammar or spelling errors, and the citations are all in order (and while I've never been very comfortable with subscription-based citations, they're acceptable and I've had to use one once myself for the article Gravity Rush). While I'm sure others will feel differently about this and may want the article reassessing, at this point I don't think there's any reason not to pass this. It's an interesting read, and a historic curiosity with sourcing issues unique to its situation and cult status, so your source usage is reasonable given that the channel has some provenance and the insider source is trusted. I give this article a Pass. Congrats on what must've been a challenging project. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)