Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of B-R5RB/1

Battle of B-R5RB

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Battle_of_B-R5RB/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Withdrawn by nominator due to improvements made afterward. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be reassessed on Good Article status. While the battle is probably notable, the article fails the Good Article criteria of being understandable to a wide audience and balanced in coverage. It cites a single primary source no less than 22 times and goes heavily into the minutia of the battle that is largely relevant to fans. It only has a couple of sentences about the battle's real-world relevance such as making money for CCP Games. It requires major cleanup to stress why the battle does not fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE and had long-term effects. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "goes heavily into the minutia of the battle that is largely relevant to fans." As in, details what transpired in the battle? It's an article about a battle, that's literally going to be part of that. Granted, there's probably been some article creep over the years. I'll take a look through it.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 19:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just as an example from one of the initial paragraphs, "An enemy scout discovered Nulli Secunda quietly attempting to regain control with their Territorial Claim Units (TCU). At around 14:00 UTC, with an hour remaining before Nulli Secunda could regain control, the CFC and Russian coalition sent a capital fleet to the station. RAZOR Alliance took the station, and the Russians destroyed the N3/PL Territorial Claim Unit and set up its own TCU in order to establish control". The article doesn't previously explain what Nulli Secunda is besides "a part of the N3/Pandemic Legion coalition", what a Territorial Claim Unit actually is, or what RAZOR Alliance is. It's largely fanspeak that is impenetrable and uninteresting to the layperson. It should be written in the sense of "why would someone who has never played a video game find this particular video game battle interesting", whereas right now it's written in a sense of fans documenting things for other fans.  ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, on it!--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 20:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

, I've made some changes. What are your thoughts so far?--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 16:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It has definitely been improved. Another thing I am concerned about is the article's use of Infobox Military Conflict to summarize the ingame battle. It is rather blatantly WP:INUNIVERSE. I suggest replacing with Template:Infobox event and moving any info that would not fit the template into the article. If that's also addressed, I will likely be partial to withdrawing the review on account of the issues being fixed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nine years ago, I proposed the creation of an infobox for fictional and virtual conflicts, and it went nowhere. The military conflict editors said then that there wasn't a consensus that using the military conflict infobox was a problem. Years prior to that an editor had issues with the infobox being used for fictional conflicts in an alternate history book series, but consensus then, too, was that it wasn't actually a problem (I tried to find that discussion, it's buried now). So I'm not against using a different infobox if it's a fictional/virtual conflict, but whenever the issue has been brought up the consensus is that the miltary conflict infobox is fine.--3family6 (Talk to me &#124; See what I have done ) 20:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I found that other discussion: Module_talk:Infobox_military_conflict/Archive_3.--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 21:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well frankly, that's a fairly small WP:LOCALCONSENSUS whereas the general consensus is that in-universe language should be avoided. The military conflict infobox refers to losses as "casualties", which goes directly against the guidance not to refer to fictional characters as "deceased". I agree that an infobox for fictional battles is not necessary, as there are only a few articles on them, but I also don't believe a real-life military infobox should be substituted. Perhaps a "fictional event" box may be merited, but this also happened to be a real-life event, so use of the actual event box is perfectly warranted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure thing!--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 01:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, anything else?--<b style="color:navy">3family6</b> (<u style="color:black">Talk to me &#124; <small style="color:purple">See what I have done ) 03:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No, the infobox definitely feels improved now. I will withdraw the GAR. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)