 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
Dispute with lead edit
Pinging (@Ferret: and (@Rhain: to assist with a dispute on the article's lead. While the previous version (of which the second paragraph I'd extended slightly) I feel is acceptable, albeit perhaps in need of some tweaking, Asperthrow (talk) has re-written it so that it is now two paragraphs, on the grounds that the former was poorly written and did not accurately reflect the article. The issue I have is that that the current lead is both too long for what is a relatively short article (based on the guidelines at MOS:LEADLENGTH), and also is WP:UNDUE by going into unnecessary detail on certain topics (e.g. the devs rebuking accusations the game is a scam, and listing individually what it was criticized for based on a handful of reviews that are only briefly mentioned). There's also some questionable tone and apparent synth (namely "inconsistent communication and insubstantial reputation"). It comes across like a desire for every issue about the game to be explictly mentioned in the lead. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is a desire for every issue in the article to be mentioned in the lede. Considering the size of the Development section, I do not see why the length of my prose is a problem. Almost all of the coverage in reliable sources is about negative aspects of this game which is indisputably a scam. What is your issue with the lede reflecting that? It is not verbose or overly-long; it accurately encapsulates everything that a reader may wish to know about this subject. Asperthrow (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with Wikibenboy94 here. This version of the lead features far too much detail (including specific dates) and some unsourced information (first sentence of the second paragraph, most of the "Common observations" sentence). I've reverted to the previous version with some changes and additions from the newer one. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)