Talk:Warbits

GA Review

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

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 21:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC) I'll take this one on. I'll try to get to it within a week, as I juggle a few other things. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: Are you still working on this review? Just wanna make sure you're still active. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 04:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC) I was expecting to close off another review and my timing was off. Thanks for waiting and we can get started with a first pass on the article body. Gameplay Try to start with a sentence or two that really describes the fundamentals of gameplay, cited to reliable sources (e.g.: it's a turn-based tactics game featuring stylized modern warfare). "Warbits is based heavily on Advance Wars," -> I know what you mean, but a lot of readers won't. This is probably a more useful sentence later in the section, if not in the article. See if you can explain what this game is without asking readers to look up another game. " The game has a single-player campaign as well as local and online multiplayer. " -> this is another sentence that buries the lead. Things like game modes should be described after you've explained how the game is fundamentally played. You switch a lot between "troops" and "units". I'd recommend picking one and sticking with it. Usually the term-of-art is "units". "which is used to" -> "which can be spent on" " extremely" -> does this word really add anything? "Terrain bonuses also factor in, with areas such as forests and towns giving units defensive boosts for standing on them, as well as hiding units during fog of war, a mode in which the map is obscured by darkness" -> "Units are effected by standing on certain terrain tiles, with areas such as forest and towns providing defensive bonuses and concealing units in the fog of war." I recommend swapping the order of the second paragraph: start by explaining the different unit types, and then end with " Each type of troops have their own strengths and weaknesses" and the comment about terrain. " with infantry the most basic unit type. It comes in two versions, Light and Heavy Infantry, the former of which is inexpensive and excels at capturing buildings, while the latter is slower and more expensive and is effective against ground vehicles." -> "The most basic units are Infantry, with Light Infantry being fast and inexpensive, and Heavy Infantry being slower and more costly. The former is more useful for capturing buildings, while the latter is more effective against ground vehicles." "new" doesn't really add anything here unless this is a sequel. Presumably all units can "move or attack"? "The new Ranger unit, a sniper squad that can either move or attack, is most effective on mountains" -. "The Ranger unit is most effective on mountains, designed as a sniper squad." "There are two types of tank-like "Mech" armored vehicles, the Light and Heavy Mech, the latter of which is more expensive, but difficult to destroy." -> I recommend placing this next to the sentence about Infantry, since it's so similar, and will help readers understand the specialization. -> "Similarly, there are two types of armored vehicles, the lower cost Light Mech and the more durable Heavy Mech." Plot This section is short and could be tied into the previous section. (Gameplay and plot.) We would only really need a longer plot section for a more story-driven game. "Warbits takes place in a formerly war-torn world, that has agreed to use a military simulation to decide real-life political disputes rather than actual combat, saving "billions of lives"." -> "Warbits takes place in a previously war-torn world that agreed to replace deadly combat with a simulation game, allowing political disputes to be settled without the cost "billions of lives". " Finally" -> "Before the final mission" That should be a good place to start. Try to focus on organizing the first gameplay section in a way that the average reader could understand, without too much context from other specific games. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: I've made the majority of fixes you requested or something equivalent to them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Thanks for that, and let's keep going. Development This is actually very well written, as is. There are a few long sentences that are basically readable, but might be more readable broken into shorter sentences. (For example, second sentence in the first paragraph.) It's not ideal that most of this is cited to a self-published source, let alone just one source. There are truly no other sources that refer to the game development? Even if some third party sources could be brought in for minor details, it would reinforce some information with more reliable sources. Reception Similarly, the writing here is good, but the WP:WEIGHT given with three paragraphs cited to three sources is out of step with what we might expect from other sources. In case you need reassurance, this game is clearly notable, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. But it's better to keep things WP:PROPORTIONAL (one or two sentences per review), even if it leads to a shorter article overall. Legacy "In 2021, the game's developers announced that Warbits+, an updated version of the original, would receive a multi-platform release on iOS, Android and Windows." -> "In 2021, the game's developers announced an updated version of the game called Warbits+, with support for iOs, Android, and Windows." The article is well written. Ideally we can find more sources, and if not, don't be afraid to write a shorter article. Quality over quantity. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC) In terms of the postmortem, it's not shown in any other source. This one quotes it a bit verbatim, but it doesn't contain any new information that isn't in the postmortem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC) I think we can wrap this up with a few more edits. We can start with the lead, and figure out how to deal with the sources too. Lead "A remaster, Warbits+, was announced in 2021 for iOS, Windows and Android, with its release TBA." -> this breaks the flow, and for now might fit better at the end of the lead, or could even be removed until more significant coverage is available. "Critics were divided on the merits of it being so similar to Advance Wars," -> We should work something in about the development, and this could be a good place for it. "The developers were inspired to create a mobile strategy game similar to Advance Wars, earning many comparisons by critics upon its release." " alternatively citing it as a positive or detrimental aspect of the game, but agreed that it was executed well and would appeal to fans of the latter series." -> Journalists were mixed on whether its similarity to Advance Wars was beneficial or detrimental, but agreed it would appeal to fans of this style of game." Body I know we sometimes don't cite plot information since it's a given it is coming from the game. But the last sentence in the gameplay section feels conspicuous by the absence of a source, and a citation template would help here. Try to work the [touch arcade] source into the development section. I recognize that it's a bit circular as a reliable source. But it does begin to address the WP:WEIGHT issue, because we can at least say that someone cared enough to write about it. Much better than relying entirely on a primary source. The reception still feels a bit too weighty, in some places. Nadia Oxford gets four sentences. Carter Dodson gets six. Harry Slater and Campbell Bird get two very long sentences. Tomasso Pugilese is closer to what other articles typically do, and I'd like to see the other reviews condensed to that level. If you were looking for a way to preserve some of the additional coverage, I've seen some articles "double dip" on sources where they are organized by subject matter, instead of source. For example, you could have an additional paragraph just about comparisons to Advance Wars. (e.g.: "Reviewers noted the game's inspiration from Advance Wars.[1][2][3] X compared it favorably.[1] Y felt it was derivative.[2]) The article is really well written, and just needs a bit more work to address the WP:WEIGHT given to some sources more than others, particularly the postmortem and the reviews. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC) @Shooterwalker: Sorry about the delay. It seems some of the issues were fixed already by User:dcdiehardfan, so thanks a lot for that. In terms of the plot section, I'm a bit eh about setting up an entire notes section and looking for a quote just to confirm a plot element that is easily confirmable by playing the game. If it had a rather long plot section I would say it's more merited, but the plot is quite basic and as you said, plot elements need no citation. I'm also not really sure how the TouchArcade source can be worked in without being redundant. Because it's 100% redundant to the actual postmortem without any new information. I could stick it in as an additional citation, but it would be unnecessary. Is it really undue if it's from the literal developers themselves? I did follow your advice and trim some reception. But adding more paragraphs would need a full rewrite, so unless that is strictly necessary I would definitely prefer if it was possible to roll with the current version. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Thanks for your work on this. Just responding to a few points: Having multiple sources for the same information is never redundant. It always helps reinforce that something is not just verifiable, but also worth being covered in the first place. (Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION.) It would definitely help the Development section. If one editor uses one source highly affiliated with the subject, it starts to give the appearance of WP:NOTPROMO. You've already found that the development has received coverage by independent, unaffiliated third parties, so adding that kind of source would bring this into alignment with other Good Articles. The reception is still long. Nadia Oxford is a fine journalist, but I don't know why she gets an entire paragraph. One to two sentences per reviewer is ideal. (If you really felt that the second and third sentence from each reviewer was necessary, I still offer that you could cut and paste those into a new paragraph about a shared observation they all had. For example, all of the reviewers comparing it to Advance Wars.)  Fixed I've went ahead and tried to tidy it up to the best of my abilities. I went ahead and trimmed the para, merged the Oxford review with the Dodson review, and instead of making a new para for the Advance Wars comparison, congregated into a sentence in the 1st para since it discusses reception in the macro sense. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC) I wouldn't get too hung up on the unsourced sentence about the plot. If it's easy to add a source, they are literally the only two unsourced sentences in this article. Let me know if you have any questions, and these last few things do have some nuance. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC) @Zxcvbnm It's a privilege to help out. Let me know if you require further assistance. I already made some WP:BOLD edits to try and reduce the Reception and I would say I'm fairly decent at CEing, so feel free to reach out to me, and of course let me know if there's anything essential that you'd like me to retain, etc. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Checking back in with User:Dcdiehardfan and User:Zxcvbnm. It's been a few weeks and wanted to see if we could improve the proportion of information associated with certain sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Sorry I got sidetracked, I do want to wrap it up so I will check again what's needed to finish fixing the article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC) There is no WP:DEADLINE and we can keep chipping away at it. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Apologies, I proceeded to let the GAR progress naturally. For the sake of simplicity, I will go ahead and demarcate items that have been finished for convenience and then focus on addressing the concerns. And I'll try to assist as much as I can @Zxcvbnm. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC) Some of your work on the reception is a good start. I'd say, you can probably shorten a lot of these by removing the quotes, as I don't think they add much. There's especially a lot of WP:WEIGHT on Nadia Oxford and Carter Dodson. It would help to get them down to one or two sentences. The other big sourcing issue is in the development section. Getting even one independent source in there would help, even if it's ultimately quoting from the developers. A section like this benefits a lot from having more than a single source. Once we deal with those, it will be easier to resolve the rest through small copy edits. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC) @Shooterwalker Sounds good, I'll definitely further trim the quotes and only kept them as I felt they might've been seen as important. I went ahead and performed another edit to cut down on the Oxford and Dodson, and think it should be better now. I concur regarding the Development point, but could not find any indie/notable sources discussing the game, so I'll let the OP take this one. But as of now, are we good with Reception? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:18, 29 February 2024 (UTC) The reception is a lot better. It will still need additional work and copyedits, and some of the details feel out of place (e.g.: comparing it to Fire Emblem). But we can address that after we improve the sourcing on the development section. Zxcvbnm found this source for the development.[1] They asked if the Touch Arcade source was redundant with the other, and the answer is always "no" when it comes to sourcing. More sources are always better, and this helps align the development section with the WP:WEIGHT of what other sources say. I don't think you need to do much more than add citations to the existing prose. That would go a long way. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC) Excellent, I'll go ahead and work to incorporate the TouchArcade source in the Dev and I absolutely concur regarding source variety, a lot of common sources tend to be reused in the context of articles so it should be fine. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC) @Shooterwalker I've went ahead and did an edit, I added in the TouchArcade source and removed the Fire Emblem comparison. Do you feel any more sources should be added to Dev and regarding Reception, what other CE concerns did you have? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Thanks for your patience. A lot of the bigger issues with the reception and development are resolved. We're gonna need to still work on the copy-editing, but I'm confident we can get there with some work. Lead "The game received positive reception from critics for its gameplay, graphics and humor." -> Let's move this to the end of the paragraph, because reception usually follows development. maybe... "Journalists were mixed on whether its similarity to Advance Wars was beneficial or detrimental. But they overall agreed it would appeal to fans of this style of game, with additional praise for the game's graphics and humor." Gameplay "It is based heavily on the Advance Wars series, which have similar gameplay in a more modern military setting." -> "It features similar gameplay to the Advance War series" Let's also move that sentence to the end of the first paragraph. We wanted the reader to understand what the game is before we try to compare it to other games. "Units largely correspond to those in Advance Wars." -> We can cut this. It doesn't add much understanding for the average reader, and it's already stated in the previous sentence. "In addition to the APC, Artillery and Gunner flak cannon, the game contains various forms of aircraft, such as the Gunship, Fighter and Bomber." -> "In addition to vehicles like the APC, artillery, and flak cannon, the game also includes aircraft such as the Gunship, Fighter, and Bomber." "Units are affected by standing on certain terrain tiles, with areas such as forest and towns providing defensive bonuses and concealing units in the fog of war." -> "The game map includes different terrain such as towns and forests, which can effect a unit's defense, or conceal a unit in the fog of war." The tailing sentence in the gameplay section could use a reference, even if it's just to the game or manual. It sticks out as the only unreferenced sentence. Development " it was nonetheless a "gargantuan task" for first-time game developers. " -> cut this, because they didn't know this when they started. You talk about this realization later. See if you can work the Touch Arcade source into the first paragraph (e.g.: "dumb idea"), just to help this paragraph have more than one source. Before you say "The developers regretted...", recap that "Development was finished after four years, instead of the 6 months they initially estimated." And cite it to Touch Arcade, to also give more support to this paragraph. Move the last paragraph about sales and Apple the apple feature to "reception". It would make a good first paragraph. "Most of its reviews were from mobile gaming sites rather than more major outlets." -> this would make a good transition from the previous paragraph to your discussion of critics. Reception "Various reviewers felt that Warbits had taken influence from Advance Wars." -> "Various reviewers compared Warbits to Advance Wars, noting its obvious influence." After the comparison to Advance Wars, you should probably start with the actual reviewers (Touch Arcade, 148Apps) who made those comparisons. See if you can make the first paragraph a combination of these two (or more, if there's anything to say on this topic). "Carter Dodson of TouchArcade also highly rated the game, opining that its target audience did not reject Warbits similarities with Advance Wars. Nevertheless, he highlighted the depth and "emergent complexity", humor, and multiplayer features – especially the hashtag match system – but disliked the multiplayer mode and wanted Warbits to take more risks." -> "While noting the game's lack of originality, Carter Dodson of TouchArcade highlighted its "emergent complexity", and the appeal of playing a Advance Wars clone on a phone." "Noting that some of the game's systems operated differently, he felt it adequately distinguished itself from Advance Wars to not feel like a "pure rip-off"." -> you already basically say this, and it can be cut. Nadia Oxford can go in the final paragraph. "Nadia Oxford of Gamezebo praised its humor, low price, weaponry choices, and multiplayer options, and enjoyed the campaign, calling it "deep" and "challenging". Oxford provided a nearly perfect score despite criticizing the lack of preview for enemy movement ranges and difficulty to remember strengths and weaknesses of units." -> "Nadio Oxford of Gamezebo gave the game high ratings for its humor, weaponry choices, and "deep" campaign." "Harry Slater of Pocket Gamer lauded the game as not "dumbed down" for a mobile audience, calling it "wonderfully balanced". Saying that fans desperately wanted "a fully fledged premium strategy game" on mobile, he called its humor "slightly bonkers", reacting positively to its multiplayer" -> "Harry Slated of Pocket Gamer lauded the game's attraction as a "a fully fledged premium strategy game" on mobile, with praise for its humor, game balance, and multiplayer." "Tomasso Pugilese of Multiplayer.it considered Warbits to be "solid" and felt its campaign was "compelling" and multiplayer being well-executed." -> "Tomasso Pugilese of Multiplayer.it described the game as "solid", with well-executed multiplayer features and a "compelling" campaign." I know that's a fair bit of work, but that should get us within striking distance of a GA. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Looking at the latest revisions, we're very close now. The reception section has improved a lot too. "Warbits is influenced gameplay of the Advance Wars series, featuring a similar style in a more modern military setting." -> Small grammar fix needed, but more importantly, this buries the description. The average reader won't know what Advance Wars is, and it's important to lead with a more plain description of what the game is. The second and third sentence are better, on that front. Think we can find a better place for the Advance Wars comparison, later in the section? "Each type of units have" -> "Each type of unit has" Can we get a reference on the last sentence in the gameplay section? It can even be a primary source, for the brevity of it. "They characterized it as a "dumb idea" due to the potential failure of a "niche strategy game" launching on only a single platform, saying that it targeted an under-served market. " -> "They characterized the project as a "dumb idea" due to the risk of launching a "niche strategy game" on a single platform, but believed it might target an under-served market." "However, she criticized the lack of preview for enemy movement ranges and difficulty to remember strengths and weaknesses of units" -> "However, she criticized the lack of preview for enemy movement ranges, as well as the difficulty of remembering each unit's strengths." That should be it! Shooterwalker (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @Shooterwalker Glad to hear of it! I went ahead and implemented all the edits above with the exception of the primary source one. I'm not sure how I would cite a primary source in this particular context, do you mean to say as in like literally citing the game itself? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Thanks again for the help Dcdiehardfan, I got sidetracked again and this is a huge assist. I've addressed the primary source thing, hopefully it's good now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC) Thanks to both of you, Dcdiehardfan and Zxcvbnm. This article is certainly GA quality now. Great work and thanks for all your editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)