Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 09:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take a look at this shortly. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources[edit]

• 2a. checks out fine, the presents short and full citations in appropriately titled sections.
• 2b. some queries below. Note that I'm not necessarily saying they don't meet WP:RS, but the onus is on the nominator to demonstrate that they do:
  • What makes "Bruhn, Warren (1995)" a reliable source?

The main reason I used this source (and why I think it should be treated as a WP:RS here) is because the Lords of the Earth official site points visitors to this article to describe how the game works. If they had concerns about its reliability or accuracy, I think they would not provide it as the main descriptive reference. Airborne84 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • What makes "http://www.pbm.com/" a reliable source?

This is Greg Lindahl's published list of play-by-mail games available. It's the most comprehensive list anywhere. Charles Mosteller, the founding editor of Suspense & Decision PBM magazine, also runs playbymail.net and points to Lindahl's game index as a reference here at the bottom. Airborne84 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • The "Nuclear Destruction" link appears to be a 404 Not Found.

Good catch. The publisher changed. I updated the link and reference. Airborne84 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Note that "Bruhn, Warren (1995)", "Lords of the Earth: The Official Site", "Harding, Sean (1997)" and "Lords of the Earth: Basic Rulebook" are all primary sources; WP:RSPRIMARY states that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Generally, the balance here isn't too bad, but "Bruhn, Warren (1995)" is pretty heavily used; if more of that information could be cited to secondary sources, that would be ideal.

As a commentary on the game from a source who does not appear to be an owner, publisher, or hired employee, Bruhn, Warren (1995) appears to be a secondary source. Please advise. Airborne84 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • I'll AGF for all the magazine articles; I don't know enough about the subject matter to be sure on their reliability, but generally they're okay for GA.

Thanks. These magazines are sources in other PBM Good Articles and a Featured Article as well. Airborne84 (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Note that it appears "Helsdon, Martin (October–November 2002)", "Lynch, Ben (February–March 2004)", "Lynch, Ben (April–May 2004)" and "Lynch, Ben (June–July 2004)" aren't used as sources, but are listed in the Bibliography.

Moved to a "Further reading" section. Airborne84 (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 2c. all significant information is sourced. Spotchecks carried out on three facts sourced to accessible sources:
  • "Martin Helsdon reviewed the game in various issues of Flagship magazine in 2002–2003. He noted drawbacks such as lengthy rules and "GM burnout"." This is cited to "Helsdon 2002. p. 23." First issue is that the short link provided here goes to "Helsdon, Martin (June–July 2002). "Lords of the Earth: Campaign One, Part 1" (PDF). Flagship. No. 97. pp. 16–17. Retrieved December 10, 2022." – So it is a bit confusing that it refers to page 23. Is it safe to assume the short link should direct instead to "Helsdon, Martin (December 2002 – January 2003). "Lords of the Earth: Campaign One, An Age of Air and Steam – Part 4". Flagship. No. 100. pp. 22–23."? This leads me onto a further question: why is that one issue of Flagship linked, but the rest aren't? It looks like most, if not all, are available online?

I added URLs to the other Flagship issues. Airborne84 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accordingly, I went to issue #100, page 23, and sure enough "GM burnout" appears, as does to the reference to lengthy rules. So, fine, it isn't original research, but the short link needs directing properly. Could you check all the Helsdon sources for this issue?

Checked all. Part of the issue was I had the same ref anchor for two different sources. Airborne84 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Conducting diplomacy and developing public works contributes to success, with the latter returning outsized dividends for new players." Appears in the source.
• "In these two-player games, players sent moves directly to each other. Multi-player games emerged later: Diplomacy is an early example of this type, emerging in 1963, in which a central game master manages the game, receiving moves and publishing adjudications." The second half appears in the source, but this source doesn't explicitly back up the first half: "In these two-player games, players sent moves directly to each other. Multi-player games emerged later: Diplomacy is an early example of this type.."

I don't know that Chess and Go being two player games needs sourcing (or that people would send the moves to each other to play it by mail). But I added a source to address that and to be clear about the "early" part. Since it's offline, it says: "When I first got interested in play-by-mail, the only things going on were the two player games such as chess or pbm Stalingrad, and Diplomacy. Diplomacy was the only multiplayer game with a referee that was being regularly moderated, and no one was doing it as a business. It was mostly college students with access to a mimeograph, typing up game moves and fanzines on weekends and after school. This was back in 1970, long before there was any such thing as a personal computer." This is from Rick Loomis, writing about the start of commercial play-by-mail. Airborne84 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Global calamities were much more frequent in Campaign 1 relative to other campaigns." I'm not sure about this. Is this based on the paragraph which includes "Almost every turn something terrible happanes on the world stage"?

Yes, it goes: "Whilst strange things do happen in other campaigns, LOTE01 is a Fortian nightmare. Almost every turn something terrible happens on the world stage, and local disasters are not uncommon." Here it seems that the writer is juxtaposing these frequent calamitous Campaign 1 events with "other campaigns". Airborne84 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 2d. Most of the sources appear to be offline, though as noted above, at least the Flagship sources are actually available online. Spotchecks:
  • "Conducting diplomacy and developing public works contributes to success, with the latter returning outsized dividends for new players." I've gone back to this one, because I do wonder if it could be rephrased slightly. The source repeatedly refers to "conducting diplomacy", and while it is only very minor, I would feel more comfortable if we could use a different phrase. "Engaging in diplomacy.." maybe?

Done. I understand your thoughts on this. I used to put things like "conducting diplomacy" in quotes. After some GA/FA reviews when people told me it was being overdone (one said they almost seemed like scare quotes), I started leaning toward not using quotes for a very few common words like this. Airborne84 (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • "It supplemented the base rules with a Renaissance and Industrial addition." no issues.
  • "Gameplay spans combat, economics, intrigue, and social and cultural topics" no issues.

Happy enough with this section now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 10:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images[edit]

• 6a. both images have appropriate license templates, all okay.
• 6b. both images are relevant and suitably captioned.
  • Not a GA requirement, but consider adding alt text for the images.

Done! Airborne84 (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prose[edit]

• 1a. generally good, but some queries below.
  • "Diplomacy is also frequently an important—sometimes indispensable—part of gameplay." Could do with some explanation of exactly what is meant by "diplomacy" here. Just general interactions and "deals" with other players, or formal treaties etc. which form part of the game?

Done. Airborne84 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • There's a bit of unnecessary repetition between the two parts of the Play-by-mail genre section. Most glaring is "to the PBM game Empyrean Challenge, once described as "the most complex game system on Earth"." with "The next big entrant was Superior Simulations with its game Empyrean Challenge in 1978.[11] Reviewer Jim Townsend asserted that it was "the most complex game system on Earth" with some large position turn results 1,000 pages in length." I'd recommend simplifying the first to "..from the relatively simple to the extremely complex." There's also a little bit of re-tread between the first paragraphs of each part, regarding the mechanics of how PBM works in terms of mailing moves etc.

I'll note that this section is word-for-word from the Hyborian War article, a Featured Article. If you feel strongly about this, I will change it, but multiple editors judged it OK. Please advise.

The "most complex" quote only appears once in the prose of Hyborian War, and twice in the prose in this article. It should not feature twice. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right. I missed this. I took your suggestion. Please advise if any other concerns here. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All good now. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 14:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • "In 2002 there were more than twenty active campaigns run by multiple gamemasters globally. By 2002, the game.." Starting consecutive sentences with "In 2002" then "By 2002" feels clunky and repetitive, particularly after the previous sentence had started "In 1995".

Edited. Airborne84 (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • "..to Game 42." Is "Game" synonymous with "Campaign", or are they different terms? Could do with explanation.

Synonymous. I edited this. Airborne84 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • "..barbarian or seafaring, secret nations, religious groups, and merchant consortia." Why the "or" at the start?

Struck. Airborne84 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • "..campaigns have started in periods from 2000 BCE to 1400 CE. The 1st Campaign was set in the mid-1800s.." Is this not contradictory? Especially when the article goes on to say "By 2002, 1st Campaign gameplay had progressed from the year 1000 to 1752 CE."

Fixed. Airborne84 (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Are "1st Campaign" and "Campaign 1" the same thing? Because with the use of capital letters (see below) they seem like formal terms, and being different, it isn't clear if they refer to the same thing or different things.

I went with a consistent "Campaign 1" since that follows multiple sources. Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 1b. Although I have raised some issues below, none actually fall under the MOS sections required for GA, so can only be recommendations.
  • Per MOS:ORDINAL (which isn't a GA requirement), use "first" rather than "1st". Same for "Campaign 1".

Same as above. Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • Similarly, unless there is a single formal term for a campaign or game, they should take lowercase. Again, not a GA requirement, though I do feel it would improve readability.

Addressed. I only use capitals when stating "Campaign 1". Airborne84 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • "..around Cavalry, Infantry, Warship, and Siege capabilities." No need for capital letters.

Fixed. Airborne84 (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • "In the game, players can "found universities, build cities, create trade routes, massacre populations, enforce religious conversions, engage in both overt and covert warfare, forge alliances, break treaties, and sometimes suffer the dread dynastic failure, when their nation implodes". Ideally, attribute the quote inline.

Attributed. Airborne84 (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 3a. My only main concern here is that the most recent references for the game itself seem to be from the early 2000s. Do we have anything more recent. Ideally an estimate of how many active games are in play, roughly how many players, whether they have been any further additions or adjustments to the rules.

Mostly no. There are no articles on this in Suspense & Decision, the PBM magazine that has been running in the 21st century, other than a short descriptive entry in a list of PBM games (which doesn't add much) within the past year. I did add an update on the latest revisions of the rulebooks from 2006–2007 in the Development section. But nothing beyond that of note that I could find, either in secondary sources or on the website. Airborne84 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, well if there isn't source material, we can't do much about that. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 3b. Probably fine for the GA requirements really, but too much unnecessary name-checking of other games in the Play-by-mail genre section, which feels excessively long in proportion to the article to me.

If agreeable, I'd like to keep the links. One of the reasons why I run these through GA/FA is to get visibility on the genre. As far as the relative length of the section, as noted above, this section passed FA review as part of Hyborian War and represents the best example of writing on the topic here on Wikipedia. It could certainly be that the rest of the article, at GA quality, should be brought up to FA standards, but that is another project. I'd prefer not to try reducing the FA quality of this section to match the GA quality in the rest of the article. Airborne84 (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The GA requirements don't specifically cover this, so I won't object here, but I would at FA. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• 4. No issues.
• 5. No issues.

That's a wrap, I'll stick it on hold pending responses. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 20:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greatly appreciate the detailed review Harrias! I think I've addressed all the areas you mentioned. Happy to continue revisions if needed. Standing by. Airborne84 (talk) 02:11, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Airborne84: Just the one outstanding issue regarding the repeated quote. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 11:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Harrias. Please advise if any other concerns to address. Airborne84 (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]