Wikipedia

Talk:Pilgrim: Faith as a Weapon

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Thoughts on this article? edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've spent the past few days straight working really hard to write up a comprehensive article on this game.

@Czar:, I really value your opinion. Please can you provide feedback on my work? --Coin945 (talk) 11:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's evident that a great deal of care went into this, and you should be commended for working in a tough topic with spotted sourcing. I made a few quick fixes and could possibly review further but the most glaring issue is the unreliable sourcing. WP articles are designed to be tertiary sources—a summary of the best secondary sources. So primary sources (LinkedIn pages, sources affiliated with the subject, such as the developer's own site) are kept to a minimum, if even used at all. Same for secondary sources—we don't use just any source that has published on the game but reliable sources with reputations for fact-checking, such that when we depend on the source for getting it right (as Wikipedians, our own work is not reliable), we know that the source is to be trusted for the information we paraphrased. This can be a blessing. Where an article might typically go into the weeds, such as describing how a company has repositioned itself by citing an author bio from a conference listing (at best a self-published source and at worst, unreliable), instead just delete that information. The argument is that if the information was important, a reliable, secondary source would have covered it. I sense that might make you uncomfortable (since if we only use secondary sources, then how can anyone write fully about games with little coverage), but realize that this is the difference between the mission of Wikipedia and the intent of journalism/original research. WP summarizes only the best secondary sources to give a general overview for a general audience, and original writers dig through primary sources to write publishable pieces on individual game histories. But the latter, as secondary sources, should be vetted by an editorial staff WP does not have, and thus it would be irresponsible to post on WP reams of original research only sourced to primary sources. I'd recommend a read through Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources to get more background on how this works, if you haven't already done so, and the Haymarket truth article is also good at explaining reliance on secondary sources. And other wikis (perhaps Wikia?) might take the original research content, but WP editors excise this stuff wholesale. If it would help to be specific, I would remove: Business Wire press releases, Google Translated author bios (link the original if being used as a self-published source), Abandonware France, MobyGames and VGdb (see WP:VG/RS), unreliable reviews (metzo, quandary, tap repeatedly, mr. bill's... any site that is written by some random person on the Internet rather than a publication with editorial staff and a reputation for reliability). czar 18:04, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply
Thank you Czar for your informed critique. I am aware that a few primary sources snuck their way in.. I was hoping to use them as temporary sources for that information until I could get my hands on more reliable sourcing to replace those links. In many cases I now have both reliable and inreliable sources that say the same information, so I can at least remove/replace some of the unrelibale sources in this manner. The information only sourced by primary/unreliable sources? I guess that will have to go. But I think that what will remain afterwards is still a comprehensive article on this fascinating and obscure piece of gaming history.

I'm going to add the last couple of sources, and then assess it as a whole later.--Coin945 (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pilgrim: Faith as a Weapon. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Source edit

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pilgrim:_Faith_as_a_Weapon&oldid=1204704324"