Talk:Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1988 video game)/GA3

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

This is quite possibly the worst video game Good Article I've ever seen, even more so than Dishaster. There's a laundry list of issues that make this fail the criteria, which I will list below.

• Very poor writing in several areas, including nearly the entirety of the "Version history" section (whatever that means), and the lead does a poor job at summarizing key elements of the article.
• Almost all of the sources used are unreliable, with a major chunk of the refs being from GameFAQs, a site deemed unreliable based on an exhaustive list of discussions. Also used are IMDb (unreliable because nearly all of it is user-generated content) and something called "The Raider.net" which is a fansite (even the article admits it in the Reception area) and can't be used.
• Lots of the gameplay is unsourced, which for a GA is basically required.
• The aforementioned "Version history" section is really poorly done and quite useless. Most of it doesn't even talk about the game itself and rather Nintendo's strict licensing for the NES. The second and third paragraphs don't even mention the game!
• Almost nothing on the game's development cycle whatsoever.
• Cover art is just a JPEG cutout of the cartridge label.

There's just no way this meets the GA criteria whatsoever, and is a C-class article at best. I vote to delist this. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delist I would agree this GA article has so many unreliable sources littered throughout with poor writing. I am suprised this was promoted back in 2010 since it still had GameFAQ sources in it but yet was still considered verifable. I have also removed the GameFAQ and IMDb references for the time being.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delist - The "Version history" section fails criteria 3b and the reliability of some sources is highly questionable. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delist and merge to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1985 video game). As the individual who twice brought this article to GA and had it passed, I see this article as unfortunately obsolete when compared to Wikipedia's evolving standards. While I feel that the GA criteria has been loosened in the decade since this was passed, the remaining criteria is being applied more rigorously and that is something that I very much appreciate. I also acknowledge that the standards at WikiProject Video games have been tightened and that is wonderful to see, as I see better and better articles being produced. I did initially look to see if I could find the sourcing to improve this article, but the truth is that this article probably does not even meet WP:N at this point, and thus I believe that all encyclopedic material could be merged to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1985 video game).

That said, I would like to draw attention to the way that this nomination was phrased. As a long-time user, it does not bother me personally, but a new user, working on their first GA, would be very discouraged with the way that this reassessment was presented. Part of assuming good faith means assuming that both the person who nominated the article and the person who reviewed it did so in good faith, and I do not believe that that is the sense that the average user, especially a new one, would get from reading this. For example, as was raised in another comment, many of the sources deemed unreliable were used in ways that were considered appropriate at the time of nomination. Reassessments are for presenting straightforward explanations of how the criteria are met. They are not places for hyperbole (arguing that it is worse than Dishaster is unreasonable, and while my encyclopedic writing skills have certainly improved in the last decade, I do not see this article as a particularly embarrassing example of my older works) nor to vent personal distaste with an article.

It is my opinion that this should be delisted and probably merged. I would recommend, however, that consideration be taken when nominating articles for reassessment or deletion, as recruitment and retention of users is a significant problem faced by our project. Maintaining a sense of community for a common goal is absolutely critical. Canadian Paul 01:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There's a consensus to delist this, so I've gone ahead and done so. Thank you all who participated for your comments. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 18:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)