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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 06:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a review posted within the next few days.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
06:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The sources pass the basic standards for GA, but they're far from ideal. Right now, it looks like the article was written backward. The best sources are the ones that cover the topic or a specific aspect in general, instead of trying to tie together disparate ideas into an article (which risks WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICKING). The article is also lacking in text-source integrity. In many cases, it's impossible to tell which citation connects to which facts. I wrote a few examples of this in the spot checks below.
Spot checks:
This article does not meaningfully cover the major aspects of claw machines. The vast majority of the content is about very specific aspects: their 21st century popularity (with a disproportionate focus on Asia), and the legal/"rigging" aspects. I'd expect the bulk of this article to be about their design, their operation and function, different variations, and general technical aspects, as well as a broader coverage of their history.
The main problem is that the article fails WP:PROPORTION, as described above. Also, this isn't as serious an issue since the term is used in the sources, but "rigged" has a decidedly negative connotation and should be used more carefully, probably not in WP:WIKIVOICE.
No recent disputes.
File:GIRL TRIES TO PICK UP PRIZE WITH A MINIATURE CRANE... is not a helpful image. It's difficult to discern that there's a claw machine at all, let alone what's going on in the image.
In South Korea today there are more more than 1,900 such claw arcade rooms ... There were only around 20 claw arcade rooms in 2015.) and, again, it doesn't have to support the United States (ref 30), South Africa (ref 3), or Singapore (ref 57)—they show up in the order they're mentioned. It doesn't make sense to suggest a lack of text-source integrity when not all of the sources being used are being considered.
the major aspects of claw machinesand that it places
a disproportionate focus on Asia. This is completely reliant on subjective importance and the idea that "there must be sources". The emphasis placed on Asia is based on the emphasis placed by the sources on Asia, not the other way around. You also say that you would
expect the bulk of this article to be about their design, their operation and function, different variations, and general technical aspects, but the onus falls on you to prove why those things are notable enough to be given more weight in the article than the aspects you consider undue, and you have not substantiated the reasons behind your expectations.
once the issues listed below are fixed, but the problem is that the issues outlined were already fixed by the time of review. I will take this to WT:GAN when I get the chance for a third opinion. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien ( talk · contribs) 06:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a review posted within the next few days.
Thebiguglyalien (
talk)
06:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The sources pass the basic standards for GA, but they're far from ideal. Right now, it looks like the article was written backward. The best sources are the ones that cover the topic or a specific aspect in general, instead of trying to tie together disparate ideas into an article (which risks WP:SYNTH and WP:CHERRYPICKING). The article is also lacking in text-source integrity. In many cases, it's impossible to tell which citation connects to which facts. I wrote a few examples of this in the spot checks below.
Spot checks:
This article does not meaningfully cover the major aspects of claw machines. The vast majority of the content is about very specific aspects: their 21st century popularity (with a disproportionate focus on Asia), and the legal/"rigging" aspects. I'd expect the bulk of this article to be about their design, their operation and function, different variations, and general technical aspects, as well as a broader coverage of their history.
The main problem is that the article fails WP:PROPORTION, as described above. Also, this isn't as serious an issue since the term is used in the sources, but "rigged" has a decidedly negative connotation and should be used more carefully, probably not in WP:WIKIVOICE.
No recent disputes.
File:GIRL TRIES TO PICK UP PRIZE WITH A MINIATURE CRANE... is not a helpful image. It's difficult to discern that there's a claw machine at all, let alone what's going on in the image.
In South Korea today there are more more than 1,900 such claw arcade rooms ... There were only around 20 claw arcade rooms in 2015.) and, again, it doesn't have to support the United States (ref 30), South Africa (ref 3), or Singapore (ref 57)—they show up in the order they're mentioned. It doesn't make sense to suggest a lack of text-source integrity when not all of the sources being used are being considered.
the major aspects of claw machinesand that it places
a disproportionate focus on Asia. This is completely reliant on subjective importance and the idea that "there must be sources". The emphasis placed on Asia is based on the emphasis placed by the sources on Asia, not the other way around. You also say that you would
expect the bulk of this article to be about their design, their operation and function, different variations, and general technical aspects, but the onus falls on you to prove why those things are notable enough to be given more weight in the article than the aspects you consider undue, and you have not substantiated the reasons behind your expectations.
once the issues listed below are fixed, but the problem is that the issues outlined were already fixed by the time of review. I will take this to WT:GAN when I get the chance for a third opinion. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)