![]() | Material from Review bomb was split to List of review-bombing incidents on 23 July 2023 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
We have sufficient prose to establish the nature of a review bomb, and how it impacts (or doesn't) sales. Thus, I think we could fairly replace the current prose describing specific examples with a table that can list game, developer, the "review bomb" date, and the reason why, along with one or more RS references (eg no forum post claims of review bombs). Otherwise, I can see us getting either into inclusion issues of why some review bombs were posted and not others, while avoiding clunky proseline-style approaches.
At least, until we get 1+ more RS articles that talk about the review bomb phenomena and list out several examples from which we can then use as a limited subset of all review bombs, thus providing explicit inclusion metrics. -- MASEM ( t) 16:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Should Metal Gear Survive be included in the list? Fans of Hideo Kojima were very vocal in their hatred for this game since its initial announcement and that resentment carried over to its Metacritic user rating as it was bombarded by detractors of the game (the majority of which likely never even touched the game, but that's not really relevant). It has very low user scores, every platform having scores under a 2.0/10. 2601:642:4201:D231:C45B:B82B:C4CC:8DC6 ( talk) 06:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
According to the sales report, Both games in China shared less than 20% respectively of global retail before the event take place. Consider the price in Steam CN region is rather low (50% off compared to base price), it's unlikely that the devs set their vision of fortune on so-called Mainland China. Maybe consider revising the words like "a game primarily aimed at the Chinese market", at certain points it's rather misleading to the readers.-- AdomiZ ( talk) 13:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
When complete garbage gets more negative reviews than positive ones, it's because the product is complete garbage, not because some evil wizard hackers are doing it for fun.
"Pokemon let's go is getting review bombed!" NO IT'S NOT! The game is a prime example of complete and utter trash. Even before it was released, the people that liked the idea of a Pokemon game, where you don't even fight wild Pokemon, was an incredibly tiny minority. This is NOT a "bombing", this is just a case of "The developers decided to make a bad game, and this is what they deserve"!
Steam early access games are ALSO not getting "bombed". The developers promise things, then the games are without updates for months, or even worse, the updates make the game worse and worse, and the people show their opinions!
It should be illegal to simply says "Oh, this is review bombing!" and then proceed to delete a ton of valid negative reviews. This is literally false advertisement. They are faking the numbers. In an extreme case, this could mean that instead of being told that only 1% of the players like something, suddenly you are being told that 100% of the players like the game, just because someone decided "oh no, this is bombing!" and gets rid of negative reviews! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.95.176 ( talk) 23:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
there is no such thing as "review bombing", delete this article! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
193.170.86.132 (
talk)
12:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I think Death Stranding should certainly have a place on this article, considering it has received over 14,000 Metacritic reviews in half a month, which I'm sure has set some sort of record on the site for the most reviews left in so short a time (if of all time). To put it into perspective, Star Wars: Battlefront 2 (2017) has received over 8,000 reviews in 2 years. The main difference to typical review-bombing however is that the range of positive and negative reviews has settled to around 50/50. Anyone disagree with its inclusion? -- Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I think there really needs to be some organized formatting of the examples given on this page, particularly the video games. It's far too long and sloppy. Perhaps arranged by year/decade? -- Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Masem: You've removed the paragraph on Warcraft III: Reforged, citing that they were "directed to the game, so not a review bomb", but a number of the games here have been included due to that exact reason: players were protesting against aspect(s) of its design. Why is this not considered to be a review-bombing? -- Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 10:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Have there been any books that have been review bombed? If so, please add them to the article. -- 24.188.22.145 ( talk) 02:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Currently the article makes it seem that anything that has received many negative reviews in a short time span has been the victim of a "review bomb". As if to say bad products/services deserving of critique can not exist and that a flood of negative reviews must be the result of mob mentality, yet no sources are provided for such a sentiment. The entire article has a tone to it that seems to paint various products as victims of unfair reviews. To put it differently, where are the sources supporting the claims that the products listed on this page were "review bombed" as opposed to receiving negative reviews for being a undesirable product? Currently the article is little better than "gut feeling" with no way of telling a "review bomb" apart from "bad product that received genuine and deserved negative reviews". Without a passable definition of what a "review bomb" exactly is, what is even the point of having this article, just a list for people to add products to they feel were unfairly reviewed? 2003:F2:1709:EB00:1D78:5A6E:655E:5177 ( talk) 13:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about? I'm not attacking Grayson and I genuinely have no idea what this has to do with gamergate.
You haven't addressed my point about WP:RS and how the reliability of specific articles from news sources need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Krakaet ( talk) 02:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
[1] 84.250.17.211 ( talk) 01:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The game was review bombed on Metacritic and now has the lowest user score out of all the games. This is due to many players upset with the lack of changes, the bugs that weren't fixed from past installments, and the use of microtransactions. I think you should put it in the 2020s section of the article.-- 24.44.76.88 ( talk) 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Because there now seems to be at least two instances of video games being review-bombed every year and the already lengthy subsection is only going to become more bloated over time compared to that on films and TV, would it beneficial in future for a new page to be created that focuses solely on video game review bombs? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 23:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you put in the positive review bomb that the critically polarizing game Balan Wonderworld received?-- 24.44.76.88 ( talk) 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
So there was an edit that added Battlefield 2042 to the list of review bombs on the main article, but it was reverted. One of the issues was a lack of sources, which is understandable, but doing a quick search shows several news articles that state that the game was review bombed upon release on Steam. This seemed like a similar situation to the GTA Trilogy being bombed after poor launch reception from fans, so should it be listed or not?
Some of the articles for reference:
Indian Express: https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/gaming/see-you-in-bf4-battlefield-2042-review-bombed-now-of-steams-worst-games-7635408/
Gaming Intel: https://gamingintel.com/battlefield-2042-review-bombed-on-steam-after-broken-early-access/
Noisyline: https://noisyline.com/battlefield-2042-gets-review-bombed-by-14000-users-on-steam/
PC Gamer: https://www.pcgamer.com/battlefield-2042-immediately-has-thousands-of-negative-reviews-on-steam/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssss ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
It is questionable whether Sia's Music should be listed as an example of review bombing based on the fact that the reviews (ignoring the outliers of 1 and 10) trend towards negative reviews.
Typically authentic reviews will form a bell curve with a tendency towards extremes for example a highly rated piece of media might have a peak of the bell curve at 8 with a dip at 9 and a second peak at 10 due to people's tendency to round up or down to the extremities. In the case of Sia's Music this trend can be seen with the number of reviews increasing as it approaches 1, this indicates that the significant spike in low reviews is more likely the tendency to extremes, rather than review bombing.
In fact the positive reviews are likely a case of reverse review bombing as they are outliers that do not follow the trend towards negative that the movie's authentic reviews have. 182.239.142.81 ( talk) 02:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Per the comment made by @ Masem: in November 2020, I think it is only right that we seriously start to consider only adding video game review bombings deemed significant to this article, and exising the vast majority of those that are only backed by one or two sources; the list of games does not reflect the heading of "Notable examples". If we keep on adding several review-bombed games each year for say the next decade (unless Metacritic bothers to incorporate anti-review-bombing measures before then), this article is going to become very bloated. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As some IPs have said above, it seems that this article is rather confusing in what "review bombing" is and what it means. For example, in 2017, we have this: Nier: Automata was review bombed in April 2017 by Chinese players demanding a translation of the game to Chinese, whom PC Gamer called "a powerful new voice"
. The
linked article has this to say:
There is no reason to believe that these reviews are fake or illegitimate, just that there are a bunch of them showing up at the same time. Beyond that, the article also says that the reviews were coming entirely from people who had actually bought the game, so it would be impossible for a bunch of random people who got mad online to spam negative reviews. To me, this does not seem like an act of trickery -- it sounds like the company did something that annoyed a lot of people, and they left negative reviews as a result. Of course, they may or may not have been justified in doing so, but it stretches the bounds of credibility to impute malice to the mere fact of them doing it.
Anyway, what I am trying to say here is not that it isn't a real phenomenon, but that I think the current version of the article may be giving media companies a bit too much credulity -- of course they're going to imply that negative reviews of their products are the result of nefarious schemes! Politicians do that too, and we don't take them at face value, so why would we do it for some video game studio? jp× g 17:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
According to Metacritic, the game is being review bombed for technical issues and low quality. Jaxhill2342 ( talk) 14:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Velma has recently been review bombed on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb. 2600:1009:B148:6B60:C5C9:AA82:A3FB:97C6 ( talk) 21:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The name "review bomb" is incredibly negative and should be changed. It's clearly something *evil* and *bad*, yet a lot of the examples are actual justified grievances players are levying against the content being reviewed. Warcraft 3 Reforged and the GTA Trilogy Definitive Edition are both "new" games that completely replace the perfectly functional old games with a shittier alternative. Superhot VR removed content and received negative user reviews for it. Hitman on GOG was negatively reviewed for having online-only DRM despite being distributed on a aggressively DRM-free platform. Youtube Rewind 2018 got lots of thumbs downs for being more "Celebrity Rewind" than "Youtube Rewind". 159.196.133.36 ( talk) 07:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Wondering if the list of notable incidents is getting too long now. About 3/4 of the page is dedicated to that massive list in the middle. It is so long it limits access to the last two sections that are more significant to the article's topic. I'd say either the list needs to be massively trimmed down, or it needs to be split into a separate list. Either would be an improvement on what is turning into a sort of "in popular culture" grab bag section. — Torchiest talk edits 06:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
It is so long it limits access to the last two sections that are more significant to the article's topic.... at the risk of being a dangerous radical who influences other editors to commit brazen transgressions against The Norms™ — but, hey, WP:IAR, right? — it seems to me that if the sections at the end of the article are both (a) getting buried by the example mountain, and (b) seen as having more encyclopedic value than the examples, those sections could simply be moved to come before the examples. I mean, I know it's heresy, but the organization of an article should be informed by the content and its value to the reader, not by templates or rigid notions of The Wikipedia Article Standard Format. Nothing says the examples must come before discussion of the practice's effects, or of its goatee'd mirror-universe form.
{{
Excessive examples}}
, nobody could possibly dispute that one, I think.{{
Too many sections}}
tag. I looked at the article both today, and as of the exact revision where that tag was applied, and... I'm just not seeing it. The section count doesn't appear to be at all unwarranted for the article length, and for the most part sections are amply populated, with enough text to more than justify their existence.{{
Excessive examples}}
problem. Trim down the content and you're left with a bunch of excessively short sections that would need to be consolidated. But that's not the same thing as having "too many sections" now, and IMHO the article doesn't — it has pretty much exactly the right number of sections for its current body content and organization, with each one being a comfortable length.I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Review bomb's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "WP":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Would it be right to add the review bombing of war thunder in 2023? it caused major changes in the game and was PR nightmare for the developers.
[3]PC Gamer article about it.
[4]Game rant article about it.
there are many more articles about it from various media outlets. 159.196.14.1 ( talk) 06:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Material from Review bomb was split to List of review-bombing incidents on 23 July 2023 from this version. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution. |
![]() | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
We have sufficient prose to establish the nature of a review bomb, and how it impacts (or doesn't) sales. Thus, I think we could fairly replace the current prose describing specific examples with a table that can list game, developer, the "review bomb" date, and the reason why, along with one or more RS references (eg no forum post claims of review bombs). Otherwise, I can see us getting either into inclusion issues of why some review bombs were posted and not others, while avoiding clunky proseline-style approaches.
At least, until we get 1+ more RS articles that talk about the review bomb phenomena and list out several examples from which we can then use as a limited subset of all review bombs, thus providing explicit inclusion metrics. -- MASEM ( t) 16:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Should Metal Gear Survive be included in the list? Fans of Hideo Kojima were very vocal in their hatred for this game since its initial announcement and that resentment carried over to its Metacritic user rating as it was bombarded by detractors of the game (the majority of which likely never even touched the game, but that's not really relevant). It has very low user scores, every platform having scores under a 2.0/10. 2601:642:4201:D231:C45B:B82B:C4CC:8DC6 ( talk) 06:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
According to the sales report, Both games in China shared less than 20% respectively of global retail before the event take place. Consider the price in Steam CN region is rather low (50% off compared to base price), it's unlikely that the devs set their vision of fortune on so-called Mainland China. Maybe consider revising the words like "a game primarily aimed at the Chinese market", at certain points it's rather misleading to the readers.-- AdomiZ ( talk) 13:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
When complete garbage gets more negative reviews than positive ones, it's because the product is complete garbage, not because some evil wizard hackers are doing it for fun.
"Pokemon let's go is getting review bombed!" NO IT'S NOT! The game is a prime example of complete and utter trash. Even before it was released, the people that liked the idea of a Pokemon game, where you don't even fight wild Pokemon, was an incredibly tiny minority. This is NOT a "bombing", this is just a case of "The developers decided to make a bad game, and this is what they deserve"!
Steam early access games are ALSO not getting "bombed". The developers promise things, then the games are without updates for months, or even worse, the updates make the game worse and worse, and the people show their opinions!
It should be illegal to simply says "Oh, this is review bombing!" and then proceed to delete a ton of valid negative reviews. This is literally false advertisement. They are faking the numbers. In an extreme case, this could mean that instead of being told that only 1% of the players like something, suddenly you are being told that 100% of the players like the game, just because someone decided "oh no, this is bombing!" and gets rid of negative reviews! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.49.95.176 ( talk) 23:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
there is no such thing as "review bombing", delete this article! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
193.170.86.132 (
talk)
12:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I think Death Stranding should certainly have a place on this article, considering it has received over 14,000 Metacritic reviews in half a month, which I'm sure has set some sort of record on the site for the most reviews left in so short a time (if of all time). To put it into perspective, Star Wars: Battlefront 2 (2017) has received over 8,000 reviews in 2 years. The main difference to typical review-bombing however is that the range of positive and negative reviews has settled to around 50/50. Anyone disagree with its inclusion? -- Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I think there really needs to be some organized formatting of the examples given on this page, particularly the video games. It's far too long and sloppy. Perhaps arranged by year/decade? -- Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 13:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Masem: You've removed the paragraph on Warcraft III: Reforged, citing that they were "directed to the game, so not a review bomb", but a number of the games here have been included due to that exact reason: players were protesting against aspect(s) of its design. Why is this not considered to be a review-bombing? -- Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 10:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Have there been any books that have been review bombed? If so, please add them to the article. -- 24.188.22.145 ( talk) 02:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Currently the article makes it seem that anything that has received many negative reviews in a short time span has been the victim of a "review bomb". As if to say bad products/services deserving of critique can not exist and that a flood of negative reviews must be the result of mob mentality, yet no sources are provided for such a sentiment. The entire article has a tone to it that seems to paint various products as victims of unfair reviews. To put it differently, where are the sources supporting the claims that the products listed on this page were "review bombed" as opposed to receiving negative reviews for being a undesirable product? Currently the article is little better than "gut feeling" with no way of telling a "review bomb" apart from "bad product that received genuine and deserved negative reviews". Without a passable definition of what a "review bomb" exactly is, what is even the point of having this article, just a list for people to add products to they feel were unfairly reviewed? 2003:F2:1709:EB00:1D78:5A6E:655E:5177 ( talk) 13:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about? I'm not attacking Grayson and I genuinely have no idea what this has to do with gamergate.
You haven't addressed my point about WP:RS and how the reliability of specific articles from news sources need to be determined on a case-by-case basis. Krakaet ( talk) 02:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
[1] 84.250.17.211 ( talk) 01:23, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
References
The game was review bombed on Metacritic and now has the lowest user score out of all the games. This is due to many players upset with the lack of changes, the bugs that weren't fixed from past installments, and the use of microtransactions. I think you should put it in the 2020s section of the article.-- 24.44.76.88 ( talk) 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Because there now seems to be at least two instances of video games being review-bombed every year and the already lengthy subsection is only going to become more bloated over time compared to that on films and TV, would it beneficial in future for a new page to be created that focuses solely on video game review bombs? Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 23:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you put in the positive review bomb that the critically polarizing game Balan Wonderworld received?-- 24.44.76.88 ( talk) 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
So there was an edit that added Battlefield 2042 to the list of review bombs on the main article, but it was reverted. One of the issues was a lack of sources, which is understandable, but doing a quick search shows several news articles that state that the game was review bombed upon release on Steam. This seemed like a similar situation to the GTA Trilogy being bombed after poor launch reception from fans, so should it be listed or not?
Some of the articles for reference:
Indian Express: https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/gaming/see-you-in-bf4-battlefield-2042-review-bombed-now-of-steams-worst-games-7635408/
Gaming Intel: https://gamingintel.com/battlefield-2042-review-bombed-on-steam-after-broken-early-access/
Noisyline: https://noisyline.com/battlefield-2042-gets-review-bombed-by-14000-users-on-steam/
PC Gamer: https://www.pcgamer.com/battlefield-2042-immediately-has-thousands-of-negative-reviews-on-steam/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssss ( talk • contribs) 00:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
It is questionable whether Sia's Music should be listed as an example of review bombing based on the fact that the reviews (ignoring the outliers of 1 and 10) trend towards negative reviews.
Typically authentic reviews will form a bell curve with a tendency towards extremes for example a highly rated piece of media might have a peak of the bell curve at 8 with a dip at 9 and a second peak at 10 due to people's tendency to round up or down to the extremities. In the case of Sia's Music this trend can be seen with the number of reviews increasing as it approaches 1, this indicates that the significant spike in low reviews is more likely the tendency to extremes, rather than review bombing.
In fact the positive reviews are likely a case of reverse review bombing as they are outliers that do not follow the trend towards negative that the movie's authentic reviews have. 182.239.142.81 ( talk) 02:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Per the comment made by @ Masem: in November 2020, I think it is only right that we seriously start to consider only adding video game review bombings deemed significant to this article, and exising the vast majority of those that are only backed by one or two sources; the list of games does not reflect the heading of "Notable examples". If we keep on adding several review-bombed games each year for say the next decade (unless Metacritic bothers to incorporate anti-review-bombing measures before then), this article is going to become very bloated. Wikibenboy94 ( talk) 12:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As some IPs have said above, it seems that this article is rather confusing in what "review bombing" is and what it means. For example, in 2017, we have this: Nier: Automata was review bombed in April 2017 by Chinese players demanding a translation of the game to Chinese, whom PC Gamer called "a powerful new voice"
. The
linked article has this to say:
There is no reason to believe that these reviews are fake or illegitimate, just that there are a bunch of them showing up at the same time. Beyond that, the article also says that the reviews were coming entirely from people who had actually bought the game, so it would be impossible for a bunch of random people who got mad online to spam negative reviews. To me, this does not seem like an act of trickery -- it sounds like the company did something that annoyed a lot of people, and they left negative reviews as a result. Of course, they may or may not have been justified in doing so, but it stretches the bounds of credibility to impute malice to the mere fact of them doing it.
Anyway, what I am trying to say here is not that it isn't a real phenomenon, but that I think the current version of the article may be giving media companies a bit too much credulity -- of course they're going to imply that negative reviews of their products are the result of nefarious schemes! Politicians do that too, and we don't take them at face value, so why would we do it for some video game studio? jp× g 17:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
According to Metacritic, the game is being review bombed for technical issues and low quality. Jaxhill2342 ( talk) 14:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Velma has recently been review bombed on Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb. 2600:1009:B148:6B60:C5C9:AA82:A3FB:97C6 ( talk) 21:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
The name "review bomb" is incredibly negative and should be changed. It's clearly something *evil* and *bad*, yet a lot of the examples are actual justified grievances players are levying against the content being reviewed. Warcraft 3 Reforged and the GTA Trilogy Definitive Edition are both "new" games that completely replace the perfectly functional old games with a shittier alternative. Superhot VR removed content and received negative user reviews for it. Hitman on GOG was negatively reviewed for having online-only DRM despite being distributed on a aggressively DRM-free platform. Youtube Rewind 2018 got lots of thumbs downs for being more "Celebrity Rewind" than "Youtube Rewind". 159.196.133.36 ( talk) 07:02, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Wondering if the list of notable incidents is getting too long now. About 3/4 of the page is dedicated to that massive list in the middle. It is so long it limits access to the last two sections that are more significant to the article's topic. I'd say either the list needs to be massively trimmed down, or it needs to be split into a separate list. Either would be an improvement on what is turning into a sort of "in popular culture" grab bag section. — Torchiest talk edits 06:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
It is so long it limits access to the last two sections that are more significant to the article's topic.... at the risk of being a dangerous radical who influences other editors to commit brazen transgressions against The Norms™ — but, hey, WP:IAR, right? — it seems to me that if the sections at the end of the article are both (a) getting buried by the example mountain, and (b) seen as having more encyclopedic value than the examples, those sections could simply be moved to come before the examples. I mean, I know it's heresy, but the organization of an article should be informed by the content and its value to the reader, not by templates or rigid notions of The Wikipedia Article Standard Format. Nothing says the examples must come before discussion of the practice's effects, or of its goatee'd mirror-universe form.
{{
Excessive examples}}
, nobody could possibly dispute that one, I think.{{
Too many sections}}
tag. I looked at the article both today, and as of the exact revision where that tag was applied, and... I'm just not seeing it. The section count doesn't appear to be at all unwarranted for the article length, and for the most part sections are amply populated, with enough text to more than justify their existence.{{
Excessive examples}}
problem. Trim down the content and you're left with a bunch of excessively short sections that would need to be consolidated. But that's not the same thing as having "too many sections" now, and IMHO the article doesn't — it has pretty much exactly the right number of sections for its current body content and organization, with each one being a comfortable length.I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Review bomb's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "WP":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Would it be right to add the review bombing of war thunder in 2023? it caused major changes in the game and was PR nightmare for the developers.
[3]PC Gamer article about it.
[4]Game rant article about it.
there are many more articles about it from various media outlets. 159.196.14.1 ( talk) 06:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)