Talk:Eastern Front (1941)

WP:VG Assessment

• The Gameplay section is a textbook example of how not to write a gameplay section.

• No references outside the official manual, and no information beyond the official manual. The official manual is a game guide, something Wikipedia is not.
• Specifically, button sequences are not to be mentioned in Wikipedia, as they are unencyclopaedic game guide content.
• Content beyond the game manual could explain what was so revolutionary about this game, and innovative and new features.
• Some unsourced opinions are present in this section.
• Some content in the Gameplay section belongs in a "Plot" or "Setting" section, explaining the world the game takes place in. A multitude of links to historical pages would be appropriate in such a section.

• The AI section has walkthrough-like game guide information that should be removed. Specific tactics do not belong here.
• I am missing a reception section, describing what reviewers thought of the game.
• As a tip, old magazines may prove a valuable source.

Kept start-class, lack of third party references and too much game guide information makes it unfit for B. --User:Krator (t c) 11:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see this edit pop up in my watchlist for some reason. The only comments I saw were Clyde's on my own talk page.

Given the length of the list above, I'd like to start with only one:

As a tip, old magazines may prove a valuable source.

I extensively refed this article. I don't have them handy now, but I believe the total consists of four print reviews, one web review, one print article, one book and one game manual (of two, the cart version was different, as noted). I personally hand-copied the one print article onto the web. Two of the five reviews is available on the web, plus one I wrote for Moby. Of these sources, I used the print article, the book (which required an in-person visit to a reference library), the manual and one of the reviews. That's well over half of all of the material available, and everything that isn't simply redundant.

Clyde's complaint was "not enough refs", and here its "lack of third party references".

I guess my question is this: if the topic at hand comes from a time when print was expensive what sort of yardstick should we use to say "enough"? If there's some sort of fixed guideline we may be in trouble, if it's like "one separate source per paragraph" then there are a huge number of topics that will never meet this criterion . On the other hand I am equally concerned about bilge like Halo: Combat Evolved, where every single statement has it's own separate ref, and it did got FA even though it renders the article almost unreadable.

So, is there some sort of happy medium here? Or perhaps some other solution?

Maury 20:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually didn't know that Krator made comments here (I was making reference to mine on the S GAMES talk), but it works just as fine here (BTW I didn't make the comment on your talk either; I think that was Giggy). As to why everything is format related, I am not familiar with the content, but the polishing done to the article is part of how developed it is. For example, I prefer cite web to regular hand-written web citations so I know who the publisher and author are. It helps give credibility to the ref and me a better understanding on what's being referenced. People have different reasons for wanting formatting a certain way, so I think it's important. Regarding the ratings, you disagreed with B and Start, so I'm guessing you want it to be GA. We cannot make it GA without it first passing as a good article candidate, so you were as high as you could go with ratings at the moment. That was why I was confused.

The article says "unless otherwise stated it's from here." I think that's okay, but I (and I think others too) would prefer it as a reference instead of an external link. As I recall, external links are for extra info at the end of the article. Since you are using that article as a reference, it would be nice to see it in the reference section of the article. I've seen where it's not specific citations; however, the most accepted way to verify stuff is to cite the facts the reference can back up; in this case, most of the gameplay section. I agree with you that overciting is bad, and a reviewer on the FAC told me to only have a particular citation once in a paragraph. Mainstream articles like Halo assert a lot of facts and are seen by a lot of people, so they must be sure it is tight. This is the basis of citations; if the fact is likely to be challenged, it needs a citation. More people, more challenging. You said you researched this with eightish references. Yet there are only 5 citations and zero general references. What happened to all the refs? I don't know exactly what the references were, but were there any that had opinions or reviews? Most people are flexible with a game this old. The interviews could also be used in a development section. There looked like there was a bit more info there (but I wasn't sure).--Clyde (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Never try to write anything after watching Steve Jobs, I blame the reality distortion field for my confusion about the messages :-) BTW no, I'm not trying for GA, I was disagreeing only with "start" as opposed to "B". So ok, on the topic of the "unless otherwise", would a single in-line attached to a particular sentence work? Or should I refer to it in multiple places? Suggestions? Maury 03:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's okay; after around three people start helping me on a given project, I start to go nuts trying to keep things straight. I think more references would be better than less, so I would suggest using a reference multiple times if it is the source for multiple things. Just give the source you are using a random name like

<ref name="Atarimania">

then everytime you want to recite that source use (rememeber this?)

<ref name="Atarimania />

You might even want to do that with the interview with Chris Crawford (although I understand that you are citing two different questions; it's your choice). Sorry if you know this, but I can't expain what I'm trying to say very well. However, unless it is a lot of facts, I don't think more than once of a particular reference per paragraph is neccessary (as in it's okay to have multiple references in a paragraph, but not the same one over and over again). I don't know, I guess it's your choice, I've seen it done differently.--Clyde (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Maury here: I think this is B-class. It isn't sourced too well, but the content is thorough. B-class articles don't usually have more than five references anyway (though they should).

Fair use rationale for Image:Ef1941expert2.png

Image:Ef1941expert2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ef1941scr.png

Image:Ef1941scr.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)