Talk:Sneak King/GA1

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

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 05:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be offline and on the road over the next week. I'll review this then. czar ♔   05:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Pretty good, but some clarity issues, lack of refs in Gameplay, lack of breadth in Reception, and overarching issue of article scope. Please respond below my signature so as to leave the original review uninterrupted.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * see lede comments below
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Reception needs expanding first
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * FUR for cover art is weak, should be updated, source link is dead too
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * also gameplay should be illustrated
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * FUR for cover art is weak, should be updated, source link is dead too
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * also gameplay should be illustrated
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * On hold for a week. Posting this from the road, so I'll be freer to respond over next weekend

The elephant is the room is the article's scope/notability. Sneak King development section is identical with Big Bumpin' and PocketBike Racer for a reason—the articles should likely be merged into an article about BK's Xbox 360 games (something like Burger King Xbox 360 games unless there are sources that actually refer to them as "King Games"). I'll review the rest of the prose anyway, since it will eventually become the final article, but I think the issue of article scope should be surmounted first.


 * Is King Games the publisher or the name of the series? Needs to be sourced either way
 * It is on the box and manual - but it seems like a vehicle from BK for this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The price should not be added unless sources are cited discussing its low price. WP:VGSCOPE #7
 * I disagree with this because it is not a conventional release. I see no reason to deliberately omit something very unusual just because of some non-sense derived from Wikipedia is not a sales catalog. All the more, because this was tied to an unusual release style that was not a normal in-store or online purchase, but requiring an additional cost. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Second sentence of lede is a run-on
 * "On November 19, 2006, Burger King started selling it for an additional $3.99 USD with any value meal." - Explain.


 * link XBLA, value meal, all the jargon in Gameplay (sandbox, player, map, score, NPC, etc.)
 * I entirely disagree with the suggestion of linking terms like "map" and "score" and "player". That does not make an improvement and is just linking for the sake of seeing a sea of blue links. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * gameplay sections should be sourced
 * So you are asking me to make a ref to the game itself and cite that inline? Because this seems a bit off. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A bit off? The version I read was completely unsourced. Ideally you're supposed to cite to secondary sources, though self-published sources can be used as a backup if the information is non-controversial ♔


 * Can any source be cited as calling it an "advergame"?
 * Is there a problem? It is a standard term.


 * "until Burger King rejected multiple Kings, players becoming the King or the King being threatened." unclear
 * How is that unclear? I really do not see an issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure what to say. Perhaps try reading it out loud? Perhaps a serial comma issue? It doesn't make sense to someone who doesn't know the game. ♔


 * Infobox video game uses media only where the distribution is ambiguous, which it isn't in this case
 * I have no idea what you are talking about. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Try to reduce your comma gerunds (e.g., comma x-ing, or "for Burger King, attempting")
 * Most seem fine as it is acceptable to place a comma for effect and indicating a pause if normally read aloud. I removed one, but "The player takes control of The King, the mascot for Burger King, attempting to sneak..." is an appropriate use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * needs gameplay image
 * Not to pass GA, but you can go ahead and add one if you want. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "score" or "letter grade" for A/B/C?
 * Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * should use a colon before listing those four levels instead of the comma
 * Fixed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * quoted text needs immediate cites per WP:MINREF
 * They were all cited, your error? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Gameplay is relatively confusing and unclear but I suppose it will change when it's sourced
 * I didn't rewrite much of that, but again - its from the game itself.


 * Several parts of the infobox are unsourced within the prose
 * Like DVD? Explain - this seems petty. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No, like "stealth-action", "advergaming", "King Games", "single-player". And "petty"? Really? While we're on the topic, "DVD" should be "optical disc" per the infobox documentation ♔


 * Game Developer mag can be linked to its free PDF, if not the article itself
 * Where? Please add it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.gdcvault.com/gdmag ♔


 * Who the hell is Phil Oliver? He's mentioned without an introduction.
 * Done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Lots of awkward grammar in the Dev section (esp. the second paragraph), should stand out if read out loud to yourself
 * E.g., "Blitz Games helped to bridged the advertising presentation gap Burger King's marketers"
 * Fixed, I think. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * lots of jargon to be explained in last ¶ of first dev section
 * Do those links even exist? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes ♔


 * Spelling of Xbox 360 is inconsistent, should have a space
 * Fixed.


 * I'd look elsewhere for the credits. Reads as OR as written
 * I looked elsewhere and its not at the end of the game either. You want a reliable source for the credits that is not in the game or the booklet? Be my guest if you can find it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * quotations go on the outside of punctuation almost always (MOS:QUOTE)
 * so [.] should go on outside too
 * You need to start being more specific because the only thing I think you are harping on about here is the one instance of ("King".) That "King" part is to a concept and most certainly does not need an inline citation and someone came through and removed extra references I placed because of MINREF. Explain please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Harping on"? Really? ♔


 * 'despite describing it as weird and poorly made, he concluded that "Sneak King is a one-trick pony that is an interesting curiosity with a subversive sense of humor."' how are these related via "despite"?
 * This seems fine - explain otherwise. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "Despite" infers opposites, and being weird/shoddy is not opposite being a subversive one-trick-pony... Altogether, it trips the reader ♔


 * Reception section doesn't explain what reviewers generally thought of the game, their common concerns, and relies way too much on quotes that should be paraphrased
 * the lede should then be updated accordingly
 * A style preference perhaps? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see it as a breadth issue—I'm not getting the basic function of a Reception section ♔


 * first sentence of the third paragraph of the lede is not reflected in the text
 * I'll work on that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sneak King should be italicized, not put in quotes
 * Both cases were when the text was already in quotes... This is making me concerned because your complaint suggests that you are using a script or some arbitrary action without concerning context. Not once was it rendered as "Sneak King". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It was at least once, and there were at least two instances of it being unitalicized. The style format follows the MOS not the quote's. ♔


 * "and impact" can be removed from the heading as it's about Reception
 * But it did make an impact - this is different from reception. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * update external link
 * Update? I just removed the "Retrieved" part because it does not need to be used for external links. There is nothing wrong with the link itself. Again... I am quite concerned about how you are conducting this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It points to http://xbox360.ign.com/objects/858/858064.html when the target resolves to http://www.ign.com/games/sneak-king/xbox-360-858064. I recommended updating it. It's a courtesy and not necessary czar ♔   21:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

czar ♔   23:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , ping czar ♔   00:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, going to work on it right away - just been busy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Much of your issues and how you define them are causing me great concern. Multiple statements of issues hinge on something unrelated to the actual problem and suggest an attempt to find problems that do not exist. You complain about quotes not being cited inline - but all quotes were cited inline. You complained about "Sneak King" not being put in quotes, when it was part of a quote and you want me to "update" an external link when the best course of action is to remove the retrieved date. Also, you suggested making internal links for terms like "map". I've never seen this in many reviews in other areas where at least minimal competency on readers is expected. Your reasoning suggests our readers are idiots who do not understand the concept of a "map". I ask that you explain your thoughts better and actually point out issues instead of just vaguely and confusingly indicating a problem exists. The fact these issues you pointed out are often entirely unrelated to the issue you raised or are non-existent is a major concern for me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest failing this as it's been over a week for Chris to fix this but there are still major glaring problems, and Chris is fighting on what I think are perfectly legitimate concerns. I had a read through when this was first nominated and I honestly would've quick-failed but left it for someone else to review. Why Chris is fighting you on the entire gameplay being completely unsourced, I do not know. "The general gameplay borrows from games such as Metal Gear Solid and Manhunt" unsourced is completely WP:OR, to give one example. Aside from that, your comments on awkward grammar still stand. The prose is very clumsy and I have to read most sentences over several times. Reception seems really underdeveloped and there's enough in a couple of the reviews to expand out. Plus the obvious notability concerns. Just my thoughts, though. CR 4 ZE (t &bull; c) 16:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I addressed some issues - I did not write the gameplay section, I see that I didn't resolve that and it went past my peer review the first time. Also, do not attribute my concerns to non-existent issues being piled on as "fighting". This article has no notability concerns and I disagree that a bunch of vulgar negative reviews need to be piled on. I asked for help on VG, but got none. Gosh, for being told that sources were optional here since it comes from the subject itself - I think that is quite slap in the face. Your words are more like "fuck off" instead of being supportive and you do not even want the changes to be done because you do not think the article should exist! Here I am trying to work on something new and with a notable game and instead of help, the best I got from Czar was the I am apparently missing inline citations on quotes despite every quote being cited. And that "Sneak King" (in quotes) should not be done despite it being in a quote. I'm willing to address issues that are real - I am willing to discuss writing style differences of opinion, but I do not want some half-assed review on something I worked with another person on to try and make this good. your review comments did more for me than Czar because you actually said something useful and addressable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Those insults are completely uncalled for. czar ♔   00:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day Chris, the article in its current state is not fit for the GA criteria based on the problems that both Czar and I have found. If someone told you that Gameplay sections are allowed to go without WP:RS's, I'm afraid you've either been misled or are ignoring WP:V. Citing the game manual as you did in this edit is not good enough. Away from that, as Czar already observed, the prose suffers greatly from poor grammar, to the extent that I wouldn't personally pass the article because it fails 1a. Development is largely incomprehensible and screams out for some serious copy-editing. It's up to Czar whether he leaves this open to give you time to fix it. And I'd watch your tone, because if this conflict of interest between the two of you has to be escalated I think Czar would be found to be acting in good faith. CR 4 ZE  (t &bull; c) 08:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be rude, but being told to do one thing and then another is frustrating. Most recently you state that citing the game manual is not acceptable when VG/GL says it is acceptable. I want to fix the article, but telling me two entirely different things is not helping. I am not taking a bad tone with you, but several issues presented were not even valid and I asked for examples and received none. Also, I have been fixing the article, but it makes it really difficult when you are moving the goal posts. I know Czar is acting in good faith, I don't know why you would even suggest otherwise, but I've asked for help repeatedly and I've not found much actionable or constructive criticism to go on. I'll copy edit the article again, but please drop the hostile tone and be a bit more supportive of your fellow editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I copyedited the development section. Seems I ran a few lines together that didn't really work well. Should be better now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this needed clarification, but I'll clarify. For the record, this is the revision from which I was working, and despite the hemming and hawing about the shoddiness of my review, the article has slowly incorporated its suggestions, likely thanks to CR4ZE's unsolicited (yet appreciated) reaffirmation of the points. However, the overarching concerns listed at the top of this review (starting with "Pretty good") are left unaddressed. The notability concern was the first mentioned—that apart from the two specific reviews, Sneak King is almost exclusively discussed in the context of being three connected games, and usually that means their discussion in a single article. Given WPVG's recent history of merging GAs, I would be remiss for not bringing it up now as opposed to later. About the price, what we consider important means nothing compared to what the sources find important. To include the price as part of the reviewer's consideration is fine, but to include it in the lede or the development section apropos of nothing goes against WP:VGSCOPE #7 very plainly. Second sentence of lede was a clear typo since the second sentence was fine, but look at the second paragraph of lede: "The three game project began at an award festival in Cannes when senior executives from Microsoft and Burger King met at the awards for the I Love Bees and Subservient Chicken advertising campaigns." Jargon is always linked, if possible, because it's what makes the gameplay section readable to laymen. You were incensed by the recommendation to link "map" (not to map, mind you) but I still have no idea what kind of map it is or what it's a map of. How is a reader supposed to understand "Each level features a unique map and 20 challenges each"? This sentence is still unclear: "The game started as a tile-based puzzle game, but quickly became a Spy vs Spy-style caper until Burger King rejected multiple Kings, players becoming the King or the King being threatened." About the infobox's "media" parameter, where "DVD" is used, it's not supposed to be used unless the distribution method is unclear. A quick look at the documentation makes that evident. The other points are just requests for explanation as if no attempt was made to revise those sentences for clarity or to match whatever was cited. Lastly, it is incongruous to say you did not mean to be rude and that you assumed good faith but then go so far as to call my review "half-assed". You're welcome to have that opinion, but I have no idea how you expect me to sugarcoat the issues I explicitly laid out after insulting me so overtly. And what's more is to have the audacity to call our tone hostile. Disregarding how unpleasant you've made this review, the issues are still largely unresolved and without remorse. I'll leave this open a bit longer as a courtesy or in case you want to discuss any of the points I've clarified, but as CR4ZE confirmed, I do not see it passing the GAN criteria at this time. czar ♔   21:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am confused and frustrated by this, I have asked for help and receiving contradictory information all the way around. This discussion at WP:VG only compounded it further because I was told two completely different things in this very discussion. It is not that I want the article to be bad - but I cannot find productive and constructive criticism from I'm not going to repeat the faults in your indicating of problems in the article and how it could have been better - it is clearly not productive and just serves to make you upset. I'll make your changes, but several of the changes you ask are not related to GA criteria (media parameter, "map", and "WP:VGSCOPE #7") and the fact that I do not understand or have raised points that were not being responded to is not helping the situation. The example for "Spelling of Xbox 360 is inconsistent, should have a space" is good, but when I respond with "I have no idea what you are talking about." that is a hint that not only do I not understand what you are referring to, but I do not have any idea about why it is a problem. There is a communication and understanding issues, but my seeking of answers been largely fruitless and contradictory. It is the truth. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it truly were a communication issue, the truth is that your response was not generous or consensus-building, and that you worked on several of the points even after saying you did not understand. It is not the obligation of the reviewer to spell out every instance of murky language for the nominator to fix. The Gameplay and Development both have clarity/conciseness problems where a full copyedit is needed. And I do not understand the obstinance behind refusing to include an (any) image of the confusing gameplay to actually illustrate what the words do not, and that is part of the criteria. If you are not interested in my friendly suggestion on the stuff that doesn't pertain to the criteria, I wasn't ever holding you to it, but the "map" issue is about clarity and to be frank I still don't understand what it intends to say. In light of the original concerns (some clarity issues, lack of refs in Gameplay, lack of breadth in Reception, and overarching issue of article scope) going unresolved with much unnecessary grief after a week and a half, I'm closing this review as not passing. czar ♔   16:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems you did not read WP:WIAGA or WP:WGN well because both explicitly state that images are not required at all, much less for "gameplay". Even now, you have highlighted my pointing out of this fact as obsintant. This sums up why it seems we are incompatible. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, AGF. Here: This review is over  czar  ♔   05:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)