Talk:1979 Revolution: Black Friday

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1979 Revolution: Black Friday/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AdrianGamer (talk · contribs) 12:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

This looks interesting. I will complete the review by this week. AdrianGamer (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• More information about the game's plot would be nice.
• You can mention about the game's controversy so that it truly summarizes the entire article.
• 1979 Revolution: Black Friday is an adventure interactive drama video game that is viewed from a third-person perspective. - " that is viewed from a third-person perspective." is not supported by the source. I don't think it is necessary to mention it, given that most interactive drama are played from a 3rd person perspective.
• Throughout the game, players are presented with the ability to interact with their surroundings - any examples?
• Is that really necessary to add sources for the story section? It is almost pointless to have these citations that only mention the game's levels.
• the first two years consisted of seeking money from financiers, and the game was developed over the following two year - This information should be supported by the International Business Times source instead.
• the team was attracted to the idea of a game set during a revolution, ultimately settling on the Iranian Revolution. - What team? Other members of the development team?
• The development and reception section is impressive.

Overall

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

It is a very well-written and comprehensive article. When the minor issues mentioned above are fixed, the article is good to go! Nice work getting all the gameplay screenshots as well! AdrianGamer (talk) 13:12, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, AdrianGamer! I went through and addressed all of your concerns. Let me know if there's anything else. – Rhain ☔ 15:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is now a . Congratulations! AdrianGamer (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

AdrianGamer: How could just promote the article when there's a dispute over the title? Mhhossein (talk) 04:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

No one is edit-warring, and all involved editors are trying to reach consensus at the talk page. If there is a content dispute then I would put it on hold. AdrianGamer (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

AdrianGamer: I know, no one is edit warring! but if you refer to the talk page you'll see that users are discussing about the title. --Mhhossein (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, the name of the article is not part of the GA criteria, and a rename—which happened multiple times during the review itself—does not affect its status. I've seen articles renamed before a review, during it, and immediately after the conclusion of one, and none of them affected the review. The name really doesn't matter here. One exception might be if the name itself were considered non-neutral or violated BLP, but this is definitely not in that category. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Thanks for clarification. --Mhhossein (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tahura.t. Peer reviewers: Tahura.t.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

I just noticed that at least one significant opinion is not covered in the article. Per [1] and [2], an Iranian paper has criticized the game as being "Western propaganda". --Mhhossein (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: This was already touched on in the article, but I just added the "Western propaganda" bit, since it's notable. Also, does this article really need the "(video game)" disambiguation? I find it odd considering 1979 Revolution: Black Friday just redirects straight to this article anyway. – Rhain ☔ 21:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Rhain: Thank you for addressing the issue. Regarding the disambiguation, I think that as we really have the black Friday during the 1979 revolution, we need that. However, you can naturally open a RFC or gather more opinions via other methods. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I think it would make sense to name this article 1979 Revolution: Black Friday, and place {{For}} at the top with a link to Black Friday (1978). Just my opinion, though. – Rhain ☔ 06:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Rhain: I considered your suggestion and it seemed reasonable to me, but as I referred to the related guideline I saw something else. I think, our case is very similar to the third item, where we have a primary topic (here Black Friday (1978)) and there's just another similar title (this article). Per that, we have to keep the disambiguation term and use the {{For}} both of the article. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Thanks for referring to the guideline. I suppose that's reasonable, although it does seem a little odd, considering the relevant Black Friday occurred in 1978, and the game is called 1979 Revolution. As long as we're following guidelines and maintaining consistency with other articles, though, I'm satisfied. – Rhain ☔ 06:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Hahnchen: Your edit was clearly against the consensus on the talk page. Provide your reasons here, if you have any objections. --Mhhossein (talk) 01:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm still looking for this "consensus" you're referencing. As far as I can see, you are the only editor advocating for using "(video game)" as a disambiguator even though there is no other conflict at the official title. An alternative, if need be, is 1979 Revolution (video game), but I think the subtitle works as a disambiguator just fine here. czar 02:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: Still?!! You would not blatantly violate the consensus if you had followed the comments and read them carefully. Can you see that I referred to the related guideline and the other party said:"I suppose that's reasonable, although it does seem a little odd, considering the relevant Black Friday occurred in 1978, and the game is called 1979 Revolution. As long as we're following guidelines and maintaining consistency with other articles, though, I'm satisfied." --Mhhossein (talk) 05:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Rhain: for verification. --Mhhossein (talk) 07:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus: Mhhossein is clearly for adding "(video game)" based on his interpretation of the guideline, Rhain thought it made sense not to but was willing to go along with the rename if that's what the guidelines indicated although it seemed odd, and Hahnchen and Czar clearly thought the disambiguation was unnecessary. One and a half people do not a consensus make, nor does it harden into stone in a day or two. Per WP:BRD, Mhhossein was bold in his move of the article, was reverted a couple of days later, and now it's time to see if a consensus emerges, while leaving the article at its original name. So far, the stronger feeling seems to be that "(video game)" is unnecessary. I agree: the title as it is without the addition is distinct enough from "Black Friday (1978)" that there should be no confusion, and satisfies the linked guideline on disambiguation. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Thanks for clarification. Can you please say how that guideline does not apply here and we don't need to disambiguate? --Mhhossein (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The third scenario there refers to a primary topic, and only one other use of the same title. The example given is Michael Dobbs: the British politician and author is considered the primary topic, and the only other Michael Dobbs on Wikipedia—the American author—is given a disambiguation to differentiate it. As there is nothing else on Wikipedia with the title "1979 Revolution: Black Friday", this article does not need any form of disambiguation in the title. If the game was titled 1979 Revolution or Black Friday, then disambiguation would certainly be required (in the case of the former, Iranian Revolution is likely the primary topic; with the latter, there is no distinct primary topic, so the first scenario applies instead), but since the full title is unique, disambiguation is not necessary, since it is the only (and therefore primary) topic. – Rhain ☔ 01:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

ASFIS, we need to open a 'requested move' regarding this issue. --Mhhossein (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible new information/source

The game and its creator were featured in a 13-minute radio story on the NPR show On the Media this week; link here. I only heard a little bit of it in the car, but it sounded interesting. There might be some useful information to be had for the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved as consensus has been established. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

---

1979 Revolution: Black Friday → 1979 Revolution: Black Friday (video game) – Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and Deciding to disambiguate I think this article is very similar to the third item (in the latter guideline), where we have a primary topic (here Black Friday (1978)) and there's just another similar title (this article). So, we need to fix this ambiguity by renaming the article to the proposed title. You can look at the arguments occurred above, opposing this proposal. Mhhossein (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Update: I believe that the ambiguity stems from the close similarity of 1979 Revolution: Black Friday and 'Black Friday of 1979 Revolution. Mhhossein (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. If a reader is looking for the Black Friday that occurred in 1978, it's highly unlikely that they'll first visit an article titled 1979 Revolution: Black Friday. Regardless, the {{For}} template will lead them to their destination if this somehow does occur. As I mentioned above, disambiguation would certainly be required if the game was titled simply 1979 Revolution or Black Friday, but since the full title is unique, disambiguation is not necessary, since it is the only (and therefore primary) topic. – Rhain ☔ 12:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: If the final consensus is to move the page, it should be moved to 1979 Revolution (video game) instead. (WP:COMMONNAME) AdrianGamer (talk) 15:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: I do not see that the current name will cause any confusion. Anyone typing "1979 Revolution" will see this article and "1979 Revolution of Iran", which are quite distinct (and the latter goes to "Iranian revolution"); anyone typing "Black Friday" will see the 1978 article and not this game. There is no ambiguity here; as Rhain notes, people looking for the Black Friday in 1978 will not come here, but in the unlikely event that someone gets lost or confused enough to do so, the hatnote will get them to the right place. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Although is one of our concerns, it's not only a matter of typing or reaching. The guideline never restricts us to the cases where the readers may reach to a wrong page. No, the titles are just too similar! this is the problem. One may easily think that the current title refers to the black Friday happened during 1979 revolution and it will cause confusion to the readers. Mhhossein (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You are the only person who thinks the titles are too similar. Sorry, but they just aren't. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you really think that 1979 Revolution: Black Friday and 'Black Friday of 1979 Revolution are not similar? WOW! --Mhhossein (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Black Friday occurred in 1978. The revolution itself took place chiefly in 1978, and ended in early 1979. The article is titled "Black Friday (1978)", not "Black Friday of 1979 Revolution". – Rhain ☔ 06:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

And I did not say they're exactly the same, nor does the guideline. I say their "just too similar". Mhhossein (talk) 07:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

But you listed a completely different title there, and then asked me if I really thought they weren't similar and expressed shock that I apparently had. That's wrong on so many levels that I'm going to exit this discussion, leaving my opposition clearly marked. I won't be needed; this move isn't going anywhere, and the Update added to the original explanation just seals the case. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for your participation. --Mhhossein (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose the event took place in 78 not 79 and I doubt that anyone looking for the 1978 event would type 1979 Revolution: Black Friday.--67.68.163.254 (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose needless parantheticals. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any ambiguity under the full name (for which it is the primary topic) can be resolved through hatnotes. Also co-signing "You are the only person who thinks the titles are too similar. Sorry, but they just aren't." This was already clarified in the previous section. czar 16:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Source

• http://www.polygon.com/features/2017/1/24/14364864/unesco-video-games-report

czar 03:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 1979 Revolution: Black Friday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6hB8u9YLT?url=http://inkstories.com/1979RevolutionGame/blog/2015/07/16/1979-revolution-is-greenlit/ to http://inkstories.com/1979RevolutionGame/blog/2015/07/16/1979-revolution-is-greenlit/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6iK1vQbyd?url=http://inkstories.com/news-feed/2016/6/10/1979-revolution-launches-on-ios to http://inkstories.com/news-feed/2016/6/10/1979-revolution-launches-on-ios
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6hBvPJ1yn?url=http://inkstories.com/1979RevolutionGame/blog/2015/04/29/motion-capture-revolution-part-one/ to http://inkstories.com/1979RevolutionGame/blog/2015/04/29/motion-capture-revolution-part-one/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6hBvSgcVF?url=http://inkstories.com/1979RevolutionGame/blog/2015/07/16/the-making-of-the-revolution-coming-soon/ to http://inkstories.com/1979RevolutionGame/blog/2015/07/16/the-making-of-the-revolution-coming-soon/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)