![]() | PETA satirical browser games 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: June 7, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from PETA satirical browser games appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 May 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Prototime ( talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Introductory remarks: This article is at the intersection of two issues I find especially interesting—animal rights and video games—and I am already familiar with some of the PETA games. I look forward to reviewing this article in the next few days. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Note: Review based on this version of the article.
This short-and-sweet article is very good. Some comments below; more are forthcoming.
@ Prototime: do you have other comments I should be aware of? Tezero ( talk) 02:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
On hold to allow above issues to be addressed; second opinion requested on the source reliability questions described above. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 01:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I... There's so much here, so many sources I'm not sure I'll be able to replace, so much content I don't know whether to include, so much reorganization I'm not confident will be enough to make the page look sufficiently nice. I, to put it succinctly, am overwhelmed. In addition, I'm in a tumultuous situation with my parents and have a large amount of moving things around that will continue over the next few days. And even when I'm here, I have the Sonic notability discussions to tend to, of which most seem to be losing battles... What I'm trying to say here is that I won't blame you if you fail this article because of all of the issues and my relative lack of time. You don't have to, and I'm determined to at least get most of these issues underway in a few days at the latest, but just keep this in mind. Tezero ( talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Prototime: Alright, I'm back. Between the onerous discussions about Sonic characters, a bad experience with a certain plant and the law, and fickle employers, it's been tough, but I'm back. Has there been a consensus on the sources? If the Daily Mail's still there, I'll remove it and look for alternatives. Tezero ( talk) 01:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Tezero: Concerning the sources, your explanations above have demonstrated that those sources are reliable. However, there are still a couple issues with the lead that need to be addressed before promotion (see above). – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 22:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Passed. Congratulations to Tezero for a great job creating this article and bringing it up to GA status! – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 23:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I made a few tweaks this morning listing PETA's first game as Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes and Lobster Liberation as suggested by the gameranx.com interview. And it's true that these were the first two developed specifically for PETA's main organization. But as the archive.org link shows, there were two other video games listed on the original games page that correspond to PETA side-projects. Investigations into these show that they predate RotPT and LL:
I find next to no information on these games, but they evidently represent PETA's true firsts. If anyone finds any info on them then please update the article accordingly. - Thibbs ( talk) 21:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
OK sorry to be annoying about this section, but I think it has implications for the "Titles" subsection that should be addressed. Under "Titles" we have a list of games "that have received press coverage". I take this to mean mainstream press coverage and not random blogs or academic sources. If so, then I suggest that we rename "Titles" to "Notable titles" and that we remove Lobster Liberation and Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes from the list so it starts with Super Chick Sisters - the first game to receive more mainstream press coverage. Does that sound good? - Thibbs ( talk) 11:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to mention that I'd nominated this for DYK about a week ago and it looks like it's been accepted now. Keep watching the front page. - Thibbs ( talk) 10:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a British tabloid which has been decried as a reliable source many times. You should watch out. wirenote ( talk) 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
OK I think I understand your confusion. A published opinion does not represent a "claim about third parties" or indeed a "claims about events not directly related to the subject." A published opinion represents a claim about the publisher's views (i.e. a first party claim). I find hypothetical examples to be helpful so here's a brief illustration:
Original claim | Wikipedia claim | Analysis |
---|---|---|
"XYZ Corporation was founded in 1973" | "XYZ Corporation was founded in 1973" | This is a "claim about a third party". It requires an RS to support it. |
"It's clear to us that XYZ Corporation has acted immorally" | "XYZ Corporation acted immorally" | This is a "claim about a third party". It requires an RS to support it. In this case it would have to be an RS within the field of morality. |
"It's clear to us at ABC Source that XYZ Corporation has acted immorally" | "ABC Source believes that XYZ Corporation acted immorally" | This is a claim about a first party. Specifically it is a claim about what "ABC Source" believes and it is sourced by a direct statement from ABC Source itself. Reliability isn't an issue here because it is obvious that ABC Source is reliably reporting on its own opinion. The fact that the opinion relates to a third party is interesting, but not determinative here. Relevant issues include whether or not ABC Source's opinions are notable in this context and whether or not it is undue to report this claim. |
I hope that makes more sense than my earlier explanation. - Thibbs ( talk) 14:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
pokemon Red White and Blue is based on pokemon red and blue, not black and white
![]() | PETA satirical browser games 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: June 7, 2014. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from PETA satirical browser games appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 16 May 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Prototime ( talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Introductory remarks: This article is at the intersection of two issues I find especially interesting—animal rights and video games—and I am already familiar with some of the PETA games. I look forward to reviewing this article in the next few days. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Note: Review based on this version of the article.
This short-and-sweet article is very good. Some comments below; more are forthcoming.
@ Prototime: do you have other comments I should be aware of? Tezero ( talk) 02:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
On hold to allow above issues to be addressed; second opinion requested on the source reliability questions described above. – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 01:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I... There's so much here, so many sources I'm not sure I'll be able to replace, so much content I don't know whether to include, so much reorganization I'm not confident will be enough to make the page look sufficiently nice. I, to put it succinctly, am overwhelmed. In addition, I'm in a tumultuous situation with my parents and have a large amount of moving things around that will continue over the next few days. And even when I'm here, I have the Sonic notability discussions to tend to, of which most seem to be losing battles... What I'm trying to say here is that I won't blame you if you fail this article because of all of the issues and my relative lack of time. You don't have to, and I'm determined to at least get most of these issues underway in a few days at the latest, but just keep this in mind. Tezero ( talk) 04:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
@ Prototime: Alright, I'm back. Between the onerous discussions about Sonic characters, a bad experience with a certain plant and the law, and fickle employers, it's been tough, but I'm back. Has there been a consensus on the sources? If the Daily Mail's still there, I'll remove it and look for alternatives. Tezero ( talk) 01:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Tezero: Concerning the sources, your explanations above have demonstrated that those sources are reliable. However, there are still a couple issues with the lead that need to be addressed before promotion (see above). – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 22:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Passed. Congratulations to Tezero for a great job creating this article and bringing it up to GA status! – Prototime ( talk · contribs) 23:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I made a few tweaks this morning listing PETA's first game as Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes and Lobster Liberation as suggested by the gameranx.com interview. And it's true that these were the first two developed specifically for PETA's main organization. But as the archive.org link shows, there were two other video games listed on the original games page that correspond to PETA side-projects. Investigations into these show that they predate RotPT and LL:
I find next to no information on these games, but they evidently represent PETA's true firsts. If anyone finds any info on them then please update the article accordingly. - Thibbs ( talk) 21:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
OK sorry to be annoying about this section, but I think it has implications for the "Titles" subsection that should be addressed. Under "Titles" we have a list of games "that have received press coverage". I take this to mean mainstream press coverage and not random blogs or academic sources. If so, then I suggest that we rename "Titles" to "Notable titles" and that we remove Lobster Liberation and Revenge of the PETA Tomatoes from the list so it starts with Super Chick Sisters - the first game to receive more mainstream press coverage. Does that sound good? - Thibbs ( talk) 11:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to mention that I'd nominated this for DYK about a week ago and it looks like it's been accepted now. Keep watching the front page. - Thibbs ( talk) 10:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a British tabloid which has been decried as a reliable source many times. You should watch out. wirenote ( talk) 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
OK I think I understand your confusion. A published opinion does not represent a "claim about third parties" or indeed a "claims about events not directly related to the subject." A published opinion represents a claim about the publisher's views (i.e. a first party claim). I find hypothetical examples to be helpful so here's a brief illustration:
Original claim | Wikipedia claim | Analysis |
---|---|---|
"XYZ Corporation was founded in 1973" | "XYZ Corporation was founded in 1973" | This is a "claim about a third party". It requires an RS to support it. |
"It's clear to us that XYZ Corporation has acted immorally" | "XYZ Corporation acted immorally" | This is a "claim about a third party". It requires an RS to support it. In this case it would have to be an RS within the field of morality. |
"It's clear to us at ABC Source that XYZ Corporation has acted immorally" | "ABC Source believes that XYZ Corporation acted immorally" | This is a claim about a first party. Specifically it is a claim about what "ABC Source" believes and it is sourced by a direct statement from ABC Source itself. Reliability isn't an issue here because it is obvious that ABC Source is reliably reporting on its own opinion. The fact that the opinion relates to a third party is interesting, but not determinative here. Relevant issues include whether or not ABC Source's opinions are notable in this context and whether or not it is undue to report this claim. |
I hope that makes more sense than my earlier explanation. - Thibbs ( talk) 14:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
pokemon Red White and Blue is based on pokemon red and blue, not black and white