Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Once Upon a Time (game)/1

Once Upon a Time (game)

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Once_Upon_a_Time_(game)/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: the result was delist. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみ, ping me when replying 03:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This has been raised in the BTG WikiProject in a discussion with, IMHO improvement is needed for this to still be a GA. After this was passed as a good article long ago, new edits were made, including a dot-pointed list with list of minor awards the game won, according to its publisher (non-indepedent and self published). I've changed that to a paragraph, did another cleanup, but IMO there are more problems.

2b) Several refs are poor. I've rm the citing for RPGNet, an user forum (see WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, in the cases when the statement was also supported by another ref, but it's still used. Also unreliable is the 4th ref. Ref 15 is also another SPS talking about itself, which per the guideline, is all right when The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim, this is a bit debatable, as talking about awards it won itself seems to be meeting this IMHO, but this is a minor concern.

Othermore optional issues: a) 5 of the 15 refs are from the publisher, mostly for gameplay, but per WP:RS, Use of self-sourced material should be de minimis; the great majority of any article must be drawn from independent sources, it's understandable as the majority of these refs are for mundane details and rules, but IMO this is still a bit too much. Also, its review section formatting is like a ref section, but the layout IMHO does not follow notes and references layout (maybe it's similar to external links?)

3b) IMHO this isn't followed. The reception section cites very minor awards won by the 3rd edition, all just refed to the publisher. the Development and release seems also to be way too detailed, listing all of the cards and modules, and needs trimming. The review is almost all quoted with attribution, which is fine, but also IMO doesn't follow summary style (this is also cautioned by the MoS for Video Games, but the latter isn't relevant to GAs).

I'll update for more suggestions, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment   Pinging BTG-related editors who worked on this article. Thanks! VickKiang (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just confirming that I agree with Vick's assessment. If this is not updated to modern standards, it will have to be demoted to B-class. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist Along with the issues discussed above, the article is not sufficiently broad in its coverage. Comparable to other articles, you would expect more detail of gameplay/rules, history of the game, especially given it is not a new game. There are substantive issues with the references and as already mentioned, many of them come from 'Atlus Games' so I think it fails verifiable requirements. Coldupnorth (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)