The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't agree with the comments at the original GAN regarding the background section. I've found background sections very valuable in my articles because they allow you to brief the reader on context rather than having to step all over yourself doing it in the real meat of the article.
I also don't see the problem with the quoteboxes, especially as pertains to the GACR
Total nitpick: that it's the first expansion could be merged into the first sentence of para 3, to lose the choppy third sentence
I'm an enthusiastic linker, you know that, but -- is our Zombie article unexpectedly good or something? I kind of assumed it'd be one of those unimpressive mythology-ish articles that wouldn't exactly be of much value in context. Vaticidalprophet20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously won't fail the GA on it, but I've never seen article quality be the determining factor as to whether or not to link.
I would suggest moving the last sentence of Gameplay para 1 to earlier in the paragraph, as it reads more like an introductory/context-giving sentence to me
I think it's Psychedelia not Psychedelica (and link?)
No it isn't. It's still spelled wrong and not linked. Did you mean this comment as a reply to my comment above about Gameplay para 1?
...huh, article says and home décor themed around psychedelia and high fantasy as its only hit for "psychedeli", and I'm sure it said that on the 26th as well. Maybe I screwed up somewhere. Vaticidalprophet20:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I swear on god that it still had the old version. So weird. Maybe I was looking at an older revision for some reason...? Anyway, chalk it up to my error.
With regards to the Soundtrack section, it feels like an appropriate amount of information, especially when compared to other packs in the series. I will note that it's by no means improper for a section to rely on a single source - for example at the point Islanders passed GA, the Development section was comprised mainly of information gleaned from a single substantial source.
Score boxes are not mandatory, even at the FA level.
The review section is appropriately organized by theme and appears to reasonably summarize the primary themes that came up in reviews.
The previous reviewer pointed out Mygamer as an issue. It is not listed at WP:VGRS, so there is no conclusion on its reliability. However, I would note that using lesser-known sources is not prohibited, even at the FAC level, especially if a) highest-quality sources are not being excluded and b) they are being cited solely for their own opinion and not any contentious facts. Same applies to any other non-deprecated sources.
I'm not sure you need a "Nonetheless" for Scott Osborne, but I won't die on the hill of it
It feels odd that the first mention of the rating comes in the reception section. I might mention it elsewhere first
hmm. I was hoping the ratings would have more coverage than they did -- it was kind of weird that people weren't talking about it for Nightlife, where the T-ratedness is even more frankly absurd than for Uni. I don't see an easy way to fit it in elsewhere, because there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the-rating-itself rather than reviews making fun of it, but I agree it's a little awkward. Vaticidalprophet20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could work under Gameplay, para 1, last sentence. You could mention that the game uses euphemisms for "mature" college activities such as drinking.
"described it as "almost two decades later..." - The intro wording for this quote doesn't sit properly with the actual quote. Maybe instead of "described it as", use "wrote that it was"?
"Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet" I smell a potential article
I'm not entirely sure the refs to Lozano's CV etc are needed, and it seems odd to call out all the detail about her being a then-PHD.
I think I mentioned this one -- this was re. "the book chapter was under a different name that seemed contextually inappropriate to use in the article", so I wanted to use the cites/text to clarify that they were actually the same person without getting into it in the article itself or citing the previous name. Vaticidalprophet20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I vaguely remember that conversation but can't remember where we had it. Either way, sure.
First sentence of para 1 feels knotted up in itself. "The 'cowplant' career reward for sims on the Natural Science career track remains the subject of critical attention." works just as well.
I don't think the details of the cowplant's function needs to be here; it belongs under Gameplay. This section should focus solely on reception to it.
Hm. I'm not sure there's actually enough sourcing to justify the cowplant paragraph. One 2020 source is not enough to support the assertion that the cowplant has received continued attention. Do you have anything more from post-release?
This one is a pain, frankly, because a lot of "just barely not good enough" sources focus on it, as does a lot of colloquial attention. It would look weird not to have it, but is a tad awkward to source, yeah. Not entirely sure what to do (I tend to lean keep in these situations, because there's kind of a "principle of not removing content people will expect" going on, but this 'bends the rules' a tad as written). Vaticidalprophet20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for bending over backwards to include information, but if the sourcing isn't there, I don't think we can justify saying that the feature has remained the subject of attention. Either we need a source that explicitly says it has been (and The Gamer article doesn't), or we need enough sourcing that it's self-evident.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.