Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SimCity (series)/1

SimCity (series)

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist. Got listed too soon after rapid improvements and expansion: see below for quality issues. Suggest clean-up/rewrite and then renominate. Geometry guy 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article fails criteria 3, as it is not broad in coverage. It does not cover two SimCity games at all, SimCopter and Streets of SimCity. Also reception/legacy section is missing.


 * The article fails criteria 6, as there are too many fair use images (11!) and several of them lack rationales. --Mika1h (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Removed some of them. STORMTRACKER    94  Go Irish! 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I have been a past and present contributer for the article, so I thought I would give my thoughts. I have reorganised the images and added appropriate rationales, so the issue with criteria 6 should be resolved. It has been of long-term debate on what is/is not a SimCity game, I can see why Streets of SimCity may be considered one, I am not so sure about SimCopter though. This article certainly does not give comprehensive coverage, though this is not necessary for GA. I would have thought however that legacy/reception is a major aspect of the topic, and at least some mention would be helpful for GA. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In both SimCopter and Streets of SimCity major aspect of the games is the ability to import maps from SimCity 2000. They at least deserve a passing mention in the article. I think also that reception is necessary for a old and infuential series as this one. --Mika1h (talk) 14:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist until I/other editors get a chance to clean-up/re-write/expand it to meet standards. This article went from Start to GA literally overnight, with all the new content suddenly added, I am not surprised there are problems with it. In fact it was promoted so quickly I did not have a chance to comment on the proposed GA regrading, which if I had I would have raised concern at, especially given a lot of content added was from lower quality articles. I will get round to working on it if nobody gets there before me - though me being on holiday for 2 weeks, plus exams, plus more focus on articles closer to GA such as SimCity 4 have/will inhibit this a bit. Whatever happens, the article is not of GA standard, as I suggested above, in its present form. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Camaron, that pretty much explains everything. A cut and paste job is not a bad start: all the best in turning it into a really nice piece of work! Geometry guy 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Relist SimCopter and Streets of SimCity games aren't really building a city, eh? OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So what? Who says SimCity games have to building games? Next Halo game is a real-time strategy game although the series is so far been associated with first-person shooters. --Mika1h (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the genre on the SimCity page. It clearly says "City-building game" OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course the main focus is on the city building games, but that doesn't mean the spin-offs can be ignored. --Mika1h (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Ohana, I think you may be forgetting that the purpose of GAR is to determine whether the article meets the criteria or not. That is not always the same thing as answering the nominator's objections to the article. I don't think the issue with SimCopter and Streets of SimCity is terribly important: broadness also requires focus, and in this case that means concentrating on the city building games, while devoting some attention to the spinoffs in proportion to their relevance. The article does mention a version of SimCopter and it could mention Streets of SimCity, but one subsection on "Other spinoffs" would be more than enough. Geometry guy 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist in its present form. Perhaps the article should mention the uncertain status of the games noted above (assuming it can be sourced). It would be one way of ensuring coverage, without actually labelling them as part of the genre. I agree the article needs a Reception and/or Legacy section though - assertions are made in the lead that are not covered in the article body. The lead is not a particularly good summary of the article (for example, it doesn't mention the card game, and includes little detail on the various releases). Also, to get picky, the "See also" section should not duplicate links from the main article. EyeSerene talk 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist. I'm sorry to have to say that this is nowhere near GA standard at the moment. Large sections are unsourced or poorly sourced. Some of them could be relying on main articles for sourcing and further details, but if you follow the links, you find that the summary is typically word-for-word the same as the part of the main article (typically the gameplay section). Now I don't know the order of events, but the article reads like a bad cut-and-paste job from the articles on the individual games. The history of the genre is mixed up with gameplay details of the individual games, and the style jumps around from section to section. I've changed the name of the first section from "overview" to "gameplay". There is no overview, there is no reception section and the article is poorly structured. Not only is the lead inadequate as a summary of the article, but the article is inadequate as an expansion of the lead! The prose is poor: I recommend reading Tony1's guide, particularly the section on eliminating redundancy. Also, please decide which tense you want to use and stick to it unless there is a good reason to change it. A few examples:
 * Brøderbund declined to publish the title when Wright proposed it, and he pitched it to a range of major game publishers without success. Is "he" Wright here? The section seems to imply that Brøderbund acquired some of the rights to the article. How? Can you explain this?
 * In addition to their limited life span, power plants are now vulnerable to decreasing maximum output at a constant rate after they have gone through about three quarters of their life span. After this impenetrable present tense sentence, the section swiftly moves from past tense to present tense to future tense (!) and then back to past tense again.
 * Buildings originally constructed for occupation by higher wealth tenants can now support lower wealth tenants in the event surrounding factors forces the current tenants to vacate the building; this allows certain buildings to remain in use despite lacking its initial occupants.
 * I could go on... my failed attempts to copyedit as I read through may also give some suggestions. Good luck improving the article: my impression is it needs a complete rewrite. Geometry guy 15:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Following the explanations made by Camaron, I recommend a prompt closure to this discussion (and will do so myself in a day or so, if no one objects or beats me to it). Geometry guy 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, this discussion has been open a long-time and I think consensus has been reached, so I agree with closure if no objections are raised shortly. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)