13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim has been listed as one of the
Video games good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 31, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 18 February 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Is it right to include an upcoming release in an encyclopaedia? Surely Encyclopaedias should concentrate on past knowledge, not future knowledge? Kerouac's socks ( talk) 11:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I know this is a difficult task, but the plot summary of the game as it currently stands is extremely bloated. The game is difficult to summarise concisely because of how its structured, but if this article's going to get to GA status in the future, the summary needs to be pared down to something that's understandable and accurate without looking like it does right now (it's about a quarter of the article's total length, which for a plot synopsis is way too much). Suggestions and sensible action is welcomed. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
See
Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies#Deletionism and
Wikipedia:Content_removal.
I just spent an hour
clarifying the core plot and fixing up common misconceptions while trying not to remove previous user content, unless it was factually incorrect, and using simple language without arbitrary jargon or unclarified terminology, only to discover that all my changes in their entirety were immediately reverted back by
User:ProtoDrake into wrong info due to, I can only assume, some misguided attempt at "brevity". Then he made
miniscule change in the middle of that content that blocked automatic reversion. Same goes for
this revert of someone's excellent per-character plot summary.
This story is the modern equivalent to
Kubrick's
2001: A Space Odyssey but 10 times longer (30 hours of people talking non-stop + in-game article reading, and that's after about 50% of the story got cut due to budget constrains), with more science than fiction and zero fantasy or surrealism. Putting this in few paragraphs there were is already sign of its writing's achievement and how it allows so much complex real-life concepts fall into place so concisely and easily alongside full terminology description in linked related articles.
Although, it takes players hours
[1], sometimes tens of hours, to fully analyse the story and understand chronology for which they usually do by replaying the whole thing in chronological order which fully unlocked post-game Event Archive allows. But a lot is still left implied and not explicitly defined in game due to its reliance on 100 years of real-life
transhumanism and the
history of sci-fi genre as a whole. This is where concise BUT fully FACTUAL article is beneficial. Absence is not brevity.
What is this ? Are articles now supposed to be as empty and as wrong as possible ? Is some letter-counting bureaucracy using inconvenience tactics are more important than usefulness of the actual content ? Didn't know that it's what they meant by
Wikipedia:Be_bold.
I was planning on proof-reading and fixing more of incorrect statements about order, purpose, causes and effects of key plot events and filling blanks in face-value interpretations of scenes by post-game & real-life info, which seems to be still a lot, but now it's pointless to attempt if they are going to be blindly removed too.
DFX (
talk)
16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lazman321 ( talk · contribs) 04:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I will review this one for you. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
These were the prose problems I found. Lazman321 ( talk) 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The lead is sufficient, the layout is standard, there are no words that one has to watch out for, all fiction is clearly marked as such, and there are no lists. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
All references are clearly identifiable and are listed appropriately. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Virtually all the sources used are reliable. All the primary sources are used appropriately. The only source I am a little concerned about is the Chinese Gamer.com. However, I don't speak Chinese and the source is only being used to source a release date, so for now I am letting it pass for now. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
This one I am doing last as it is the most time-consuming criterion to review. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Finally have the chance to do this source check. Unfortunately, I won't be checking Japanese sources, despite me wishing otherwise. This is because I don't read Japanese, and the browser automatic translator, when translating Japanese, produces grammatical errors and hard-to-read text. As such, I am taking the Japanese sources in good faith.
Anyway, these are the statements that are not backed up by the listed sources:
And that is about it. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
With a copyvio score of 8.3 %, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The article is definitely broad in nature. It successfully mentions all the main aspects of the game along with expanding upon those aspects. I especially how detailed the development and release sections were. I don't think anything more has to be added to this article. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Despite how detailed this article is, at no point does it ever stray off-topic. All the information is related to the game in some way. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 18:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The article is neutral. All opinions are clearly marked as such. Therefore, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 18:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The article hasn't been edited in five days. There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes. As a result, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 18:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
All non-free images have a valid fair-use rationale. The one image of a living person is under a free license. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The image used in the infobox is the cover art of the game. The images used in the gameplay section are screenshots from the game. The picture of a living person is Hitoshi Sakimoto, the leader of the music team. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion.
I am placing this review On hold for seven days. I see you have dealt with the problems raised in the prose section. Now all you have to do is fix one more prose problem, a neutral problem, and some source checking problems; and this should be good to go. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Greener Meaner Green Goblin and NarkySawtooth: Both of you have done 3 reverts under 24 hours, and the next person, no matter how "right" he is, would be blocked according to WP:3RR rules. Please do not do any reverts, and discuss the changes you wanted here. I do not understand the gist of the trouble, or about this topic, but I will do the best I can to mediate both of you. SunDawn talk 02:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I already reported user NarkySawtooth and their behavior and asked for them to be suspended, since I tried to reason with them in talk page(s), but they reverted my edits with other weak and debunkable excuses and without even giving me any response first in said talk page(s). I have all the evidence I need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
It was removed by an unknown user without username, then it was reposted by an administrator, Discospinster, and then it was always you. And no, the statement is not "completely false", is true, and you know it and yet you continue to lie (all it takes is to notice and compare the differences, and I even posted sources from 3 or 4 different sites about it). Now what I want is to repost at least this considerably shortened text as follows: "As with other Japanese videogames released in the last years, the English localization of the game, and so extended to the rest of the West ( North America and Europe), has been criticized because dialogues in the game would have turned one of the characters from a crossdresser to non-binary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim has been listed as one of the
Video games good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: July 31, 2021. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
13 Sentinels: Aegis Rim ( final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 18 February 2021 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Is it right to include an upcoming release in an encyclopaedia? Surely Encyclopaedias should concentrate on past knowledge, not future knowledge? Kerouac's socks ( talk) 11:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
I know this is a difficult task, but the plot summary of the game as it currently stands is extremely bloated. The game is difficult to summarise concisely because of how its structured, but if this article's going to get to GA status in the future, the summary needs to be pared down to something that's understandable and accurate without looking like it does right now (it's about a quarter of the article's total length, which for a plot synopsis is way too much). Suggestions and sensible action is welcomed. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 16:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
See
Wikipedia:Why_is_Wikipedia_losing_contributors_-_Thinking_about_remedies#Deletionism and
Wikipedia:Content_removal.
I just spent an hour
clarifying the core plot and fixing up common misconceptions while trying not to remove previous user content, unless it was factually incorrect, and using simple language without arbitrary jargon or unclarified terminology, only to discover that all my changes in their entirety were immediately reverted back by
User:ProtoDrake into wrong info due to, I can only assume, some misguided attempt at "brevity". Then he made
miniscule change in the middle of that content that blocked automatic reversion. Same goes for
this revert of someone's excellent per-character plot summary.
This story is the modern equivalent to
Kubrick's
2001: A Space Odyssey but 10 times longer (30 hours of people talking non-stop + in-game article reading, and that's after about 50% of the story got cut due to budget constrains), with more science than fiction and zero fantasy or surrealism. Putting this in few paragraphs there were is already sign of its writing's achievement and how it allows so much complex real-life concepts fall into place so concisely and easily alongside full terminology description in linked related articles.
Although, it takes players hours
[1], sometimes tens of hours, to fully analyse the story and understand chronology for which they usually do by replaying the whole thing in chronological order which fully unlocked post-game Event Archive allows. But a lot is still left implied and not explicitly defined in game due to its reliance on 100 years of real-life
transhumanism and the
history of sci-fi genre as a whole. This is where concise BUT fully FACTUAL article is beneficial. Absence is not brevity.
What is this ? Are articles now supposed to be as empty and as wrong as possible ? Is some letter-counting bureaucracy using inconvenience tactics are more important than usefulness of the actual content ? Didn't know that it's what they meant by
Wikipedia:Be_bold.
I was planning on proof-reading and fixing more of incorrect statements about order, purpose, causes and effects of key plot events and filling blanks in face-value interpretations of scenes by post-game & real-life info, which seems to be still a lot, but now it's pointless to attempt if they are going to be blindly removed too.
DFX (
talk)
16:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Lazman321 ( talk · contribs) 04:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
I will review this one for you. Lazman321 ( talk) 04:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
These were the prose problems I found. Lazman321 ( talk) 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The lead is sufficient, the layout is standard, there are no words that one has to watch out for, all fiction is clearly marked as such, and there are no lists. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
All references are clearly identifiable and are listed appropriately. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Virtually all the sources used are reliable. All the primary sources are used appropriately. The only source I am a little concerned about is the Chinese Gamer.com. However, I don't speak Chinese and the source is only being used to source a release date, so for now I am letting it pass for now. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
This one I am doing last as it is the most time-consuming criterion to review. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Finally have the chance to do this source check. Unfortunately, I won't be checking Japanese sources, despite me wishing otherwise. This is because I don't read Japanese, and the browser automatic translator, when translating Japanese, produces grammatical errors and hard-to-read text. As such, I am taking the Japanese sources in good faith.
Anyway, these are the statements that are not backed up by the listed sources:
And that is about it. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
With a copyvio score of 8.3 %, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The article is definitely broad in nature. It successfully mentions all the main aspects of the game along with expanding upon those aspects. I especially how detailed the development and release sections were. I don't think anything more has to be added to this article. As such, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 17:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Despite how detailed this article is, at no point does it ever stray off-topic. All the information is related to the game in some way. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 18:00, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The article is neutral. All opinions are clearly marked as such. Therefore, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 18:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The article hasn't been edited in five days. There are no ongoing edit wars or content disputes. As a result, this article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 18:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
All non-free images have a valid fair-use rationale. The one image of a living person is under a free license. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion. Lazman321 ( talk) 18:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The image used in the infobox is the cover art of the game. The images used in the gameplay section are screenshots from the game. The picture of a living person is Hitoshi Sakimoto, the leader of the music team. This article does ✓ Pass this criterion.
I am placing this review On hold for seven days. I see you have dealt with the problems raised in the prose section. Now all you have to do is fix one more prose problem, a neutral problem, and some source checking problems; and this should be good to go. Lazman321 ( talk) 05:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Greener Meaner Green Goblin and NarkySawtooth: Both of you have done 3 reverts under 24 hours, and the next person, no matter how "right" he is, would be blocked according to WP:3RR rules. Please do not do any reverts, and discuss the changes you wanted here. I do not understand the gist of the trouble, or about this topic, but I will do the best I can to mediate both of you. SunDawn talk 02:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I already reported user NarkySawtooth and their behavior and asked for them to be suspended, since I tried to reason with them in talk page(s), but they reverted my edits with other weak and debunkable excuses and without even giving me any response first in said talk page(s). I have all the evidence I need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin ( talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
It was removed by an unknown user without username, then it was reposted by an administrator, Discospinster, and then it was always you. And no, the statement is not "completely false", is true, and you know it and yet you continue to lie (all it takes is to notice and compare the differences, and I even posted sources from 3 or 4 different sites about it). Now what I want is to repost at least this considerably shortened text as follows: "As with other Japanese videogames released in the last years, the English localization of the game, and so extended to the rest of the West ( North America and Europe), has been criticized because dialogues in the game would have turned one of the characters from a crossdresser to non-binary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greener Meaner Green Goblin ( talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 May 2022 (UTC)