Template:Did you know nominations/The Punisher (1993 video game)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Punisher (1993 video game)

 * ... that The Punisher can be distinguished from other beat 'em up games by its frequent use of firearms?
 * Reviewed: East India Arms

Improved to Good Article status by Freikorp (talk). Self nominated at 03:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New GA (2nd), long enough, neutral, no copyvio found via spot check, QPQ done (though it isn't a full review). Some of these sources appear to be super-unreliable... Rq87.flyingomelette.com? Arcadequartermaster.com? arcade-history.com? They're unabashed fansites and unsuitable sources for an encyclopedia. I'll take it to WT:VG to get a second opinion. The line that ends with "Kate Neville." needs a ref. Hook checks out, though it doesn't use the same language as the article. Everything is just about okay except for the sourcing. Good work. Please ping me if I don't respond czar ♔   20:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Czar, thanks for your review. I didn't add those references to the article, but I left them in the article when I overhauled it as I agree with User:ProtoDrake's comments at WP:VG. Every source is reliable for something, and those fan sites are only used as sources for non-controversial statemements; I certainly wouldn't have let them be used for praise or criticism of the game. As for the QPQ, you're right that wasn't a full review, but i'm sure i've made up for it elsewhere. I've removed the line that ends with Kate Neville as I can't find a source for it. Freikorp (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (I don't think the ping sends unless you include a four tilde signature in the same edit.) Anyway, I saw your response—just waiting for some more feedback at WT:VG. It's my understanding that all unreliable sources should be scrapped as it's better to have no citation than a link to an unreliable fansite. czar ♔   03:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the information about pings. Given the feedback at WP:VG, i'm considering deleting all fan sources from the plot section anyway as they are not required; what are your thoughts on this? Also whilst Rq87.flyingomelette and Arcadequartermaster clearly appear to be fan sites, arcade-history.com seems to be much more professional and comprehensive. Searching for "arcade-history.com" on wikipedia gets over 500 responses, by comparison the other two get 15 and 3 respectively. I don't personally consider arcade-history.com to be in the same category as the other two - I think it's rather reliable. What are your thoughts on this as well? Freikorp (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've since removed all the references from both Rq87.flyingomelette and Arcadequartermaster, replacing where possible with sources used elsewhere in the article. Freikorp (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Czar, now that i've removed the fan sites from the article, is this good to go? :) Freikorp (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, so as it stands, the article still has an issue with reliable sources (DYK rule #4). Honestgamers.com, Siguealconejoblanco.com, arcade-history.com, gaygamer.net, RetroCollect, retrogameage, ifanboy, movie-censorship are not reliable because they have no evident editorial policy or standard for quality control (making them no different from blogs or fan sites) and should be removed. The video games WikiProject keeps a list of the sites vetted as reliable at WP:VG/RS. (Again, re: arcade-history.com, it matters more about their editorial policy and use of user-contributed content than how often it has been cited on WP. Its number of citations on WP could just be a mistake that needs to be cleaned up.) I can appreciate how it's tough to source games from the 90s, which usually means relying on their contemporaneous print sources, but this reliance on reputable secondary sources is a standard across WP (not just in specific game articles). WT:VG can help you find print sources, if needed. JB has some advice on sourcing at WP:VGSOURCE czar ♔   10:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a small wiki :). I'm not sure if you remember (I forgot it was you who nominated it), but I participated in the DYK discussion for Mischief Makers; well done on that article by the way. I enjoyed playing the game as a child, which was what attracted me to the DYK review. Anyway back on topic: at WT:VG ProtoDrake seemed to think the sources were acceptable given the circumstances; which part of his comments do you disagree with? Ugog Nizdast (GA reviewer) also was happy enough with the sources; both of these assessments were made even before I weeded the least reliable references. It's a shame more people didn't answer your query at WT:VG, I would have liked some more opinions on the matter also, but at least at the moment everyone seems else seems to think the sources are acceptable. Feel free to bring others to the conversation; I would except this is the first VG article i've put effort into so I don't really know anyone with experience in this area. I know the sources you're questioning aren't fantastic; they are lightweight sources, but they are only used for lightweight claims. They are not used to back up any libellous or controversial, and IFanboy at least has a wiki article, setting it a bit above the rest; readers can easily follow through and find out more about the site. I do want the article to be as good as possible, so regardless of whether the article is passed at DYK or not, i'll look into getting more reliable sources for it after this Monday, as i'm a bit busy till then. Freikorp (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Czar. I've added two sources from Retro Gamer. Even though I believe they were acceptable, i've also removed all references from Honestgamers.com, Siguealconejoblanco.com, gaygamer.net, RetroCollect and retrogameage. This has removed some references from the gameplay section, but as per Thibbs comments at WT:VG, some aspects of the game can be source-able to the game itself. I've isolated sources from Arcade-history to release dates and soundtrack release in the development section. movie-censorship is isolated for use regarding censorship in the development section only; as any source can be considered reliable for something, i'm confident RSN would find these two uses acceptable. iFanboy has been active since 2005, and has had a wikipedia article since 2007; it may lack an editorial policy, but it's an established, notable site lacking an editorial policy. People can click on the wikilink and easily decide for themselves how much weight their opinions should hold. The source is used once regarding censorship and once for a review; i'm 100% confident the quote regarding censorship is acceptable, and i'd at least like to hear a third opinion on that specific sources review before I consider removing it. Considering how much this articles sources has improved, would you be able to pass it now? Freikorp (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Where did you read that "any source can be considered reliable for something"? Arcade-history and movie-censorship are completely user-submitted and cannot be used as "reliable" sources for an encyclopedia. Again, there are print sources that could work with this, but the article is better off without citing potentially wrong information. iFanboy I'm less concerned about, though I still wouldn't consider it reliable until vetted by RSN. (By the way, having its own Wikipedia article doesn't make the site insta-notable. It could easily be merged/deleted at AfD.) Feel free to take any of these to RSN if you're interested, but I'm only concerned about the sites that would patently fail a WP:VG/RS review. czar ♔   14:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I remember someone commenting that in reply to one of my queries at RSN several years ago; I asked whether source X was reliable, to which they replied any source was reliable for something, and I had to be more specific. Perhaps I took their advice too literally. Anyway, after searching the archives at RSN and doing more of my own research I decided to remove the Arcade-history and movie-censorship references completely. I've taken the IFanboy reference to RSN, where I remain confident it will be accepted. I've added two new sources; one from vgmonline.net and one from MobyGames. Is the article looking good to you now? Freikorp (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry this is taking so long. It all sounds good except for the new additions. At WP:VG/RS, MobyGames is not a reliable source (user-submitted) and VGMO's composer biographies are considered unreliable, so both new links would have to go. czar ♔   18:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries, I understand this must be frustrating for you too. Hmm, the reason I was trying so hard to find those new sources is because without them the 'Arcade' sub-section of the Development section does not have a reference, and i'm not sure if it requires one to pass DYK. Your thoughts? I've removed the two new references, and I added a little new information and inline citations with existing references elsewhere. Freikorp (talk) 21:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I imagine the original, print sources are going to be best for this stuff. Topic completeness if more a GA thing than a DYK thing, but everything needs to be sourced within a DYK article. My recommendation would be to let the unsourced stuff hang out on the talk page until a source shows up to support it, whereupon it can move back into the article. czar ♔   21:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Freikorp (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just about to take a wikibreak. I have addressed all known concerns so far; if there are further concerns I won't be able to address them until November 3. Accordingly if you find a new minor concern i'd appreciate it if you could just fix it yourself, but no hard feelings if for some reason this still cannot be passed. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 12:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It was just that one last cn tag, which you fixed, but Gamestalker.nl doesn't appear to be any more than a blog... Anyway, I've already put you through hell, so I'm passing this, but blogs and other sites without editorial credibility should be removed from the article's references when you have a moment. Good work czar ♔   15:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)