# Talk:Blood Knights

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blood Knights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tezero (talk) · contribs) 23:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Nominator: Sᴠᴇɴ Mᴀɴɢᴜᴀʀᴅ Wha?
Hi! My review for this article will be here shortly.  --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You haven't forgotten, have you? It's okay if you have to step out, but please let WP:VG know. Tezero (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Seabuckthorn has a message on his user page indicating that he's only available on the weekends. If I haven't heard from him by Monday, I'll reach back out to you Tezero. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Tezero - The weekend has come and gone with no word from Seabuckthorn. How would I go about requesting I new reviewer? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
You'd probably just ask on WT:VG. I can just review it, though. I'll look at it now. Tezero (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so the prose is fine, and the article seems decent for the most part. It needs a screenshot, though, as well as a development section, and I think Plot could be more detailed. For development, the following articles may be helpful: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] If you can get a solid paragraph, that's fine - just something. Tezero (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Tezero - I put in a development section, although it focuses entirely on publication delays. What do you think of it? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine if it's all there is to write. Tezero (talk) 22:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Tezero - I'm not sure what to do about the plot. There really isn't that much out there on it, and I've scraped together everything I could find. A lot of XBLA/PSN games don't have terribly good coverage, and for the sake of discussion, a lot of them don't have terribly detailed plots either. As for the screenshot, I don't think that I'd be successful at getting one released - we've got very little in the way of nice things to say about the game in the article - and I would prefer not to upload non-free images. Where do you want to go from here? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I added a screenshot. As for the plot, well, what happens at the end? Whom do they fight along the way? Does their relationship develop? You could probably watch a Let's Play, skipping through to the cutscenes and such, and summarize the plot from that. Tezero (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that's the only way that I'd be able to do that, as none of those questions are answered in any of the sources I found. Can I source YouTube videos? Sven Manguard Wha? 06:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
You could cite game quotes from the videos, right? Sourcing YouTube videos isn't forbidden, but would be considered a little sketchy here. Tezero (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Passed by Tezero - "The article passes, but I'm on my phartsmone now and making the appropriate edits is incredibly tedious on it. I'm not sure if there's a rule against this, but if not, you can just change everything to "GA" and add it to the appropriate lists yourself."

Saw your note somewhere about your stance on non-free WP content. Have you tried contacting the company for media assets (cover art, screenshots, etc.)? I did the Fez stuff so I'm happy to give this a go if you'd like czar ♔ 18:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I will shoot you an email on this matter shortly. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I was advised to remove the sources from the plot section, but rather than zap them entirely, I'll store them here. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you remove them because of source unreliability or just because? czar ♔ 13:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Czar - See T's response below. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the plot is so long in comparison to everything else? Seems like undue weight as is czar ♔ 13:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Our guidelines suggest a 700-word maximum for plot sections. 1,045 words is too long, especially for a shorter article such as this. Who asked you to remove the citations in the plot? In the GA Review, Tezero encouraged them. I'd suggest trimming the Plot down to about 60-70% of its length and adding the footnotes back in. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
That's my mistake, if it is indeed a mistake. I guess I changed my mind after GAN, or re-evaluated hen he mentioned an FAC: I said that citing Let's Plays would not hold up in an FAC and one really does not want an oppose vote. The fact remains, though, that plenty of plot sections get by fine without citations. Tezero (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, ref-free plots are fine (WP:WAF), but if it's possible to cite from available sources, that's great. Personally, I've found that the more recent games have their plots adequately covered in reviews (and if it wasn't worth covering in-depth in reviews, it isn't worth having in the article). But to my original point, I think the plot could use some trimming. A summary in half the space sounds good to me, but there are guidelines if you want to minimize the cutting, I suppose. czar ♔ 20:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Czar: This was my original plot section, complete with my original sources. At 111 words, it is too short, but coverage of this game has been scarce, especially in what we would consider reliable sources. The current plot, after two rounds of trimming, is 766 words, and probably still too long. Tezero mentioned on his talk page (I asked him the same thing I asked you) that I should ask for a copyedit. Perhaps the copyeditor will be able to trim it down a little bit more, but I don't see anything else that I can cut. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
@Czar: I wouldn't say that plot points not covered in reviews aren't worth having in the article. Many reviewers don't play the games they critique for very long, and when they do, I'm sure they sometimes think the plot points aren't relevant to their main points in the review, they're potential spoilers, or they don't give any particular impression one way or the other. Plot sections could be incomprehensible if we only left in what reviewers did. (Granted, there should be some threshold for detail to keep from telling casual readers too much that they don't care about.) Tezero (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Aside from the sources for the plot section, which I'm still not sure whether to include or not, and the copyedit, which I will start looking to secure soon, the biggest outstanding issue is that some of the sources may not be reliable. I had four, and now I am down to two, that are questionable. Co-Optimus and PlayStationLifeStyle are used in the blow-by-blow coverage of the game's delays, and I haven't been able to find replacements in reliable sources. I personally think, looking at the sites' credentials and considering what they're being used for, that the sites are probably okay, but I've never been through an FAC source review. What do you think? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, plot doesn't need refs (by the books), but I question the pertinence of the plot section. Is it even necessary for the plot to have its own section? If the 111 words is a suitable summary, it could fit into Gameplay without much more fanfare. Reading the new plot, it's hard to follow and detail-laden. Is it reasonable to eke out two more sentences on the plot from the sources and throw the whole plot into Gameplay? That's my suggestion. And as for copyediting, I'm a copyeditor and I generally edit as I read. I wouldn't normally trim text unless it was super superfluous or if otherwise prompted by a current editor to do so. I'd run the shaky sources past WP:VG/RS ASAP. The two you mentioned might be fine, looking at their affiliations and some staff experience. Better to find out now than later. Overall, I'd say that I realized that while just about any article can get to GA with elbow grease, FAC is reserved for shining and exceptional articles, and it's impossible for some topics to ever reach that level of quality. Most of my articles will remain at GA because they won't ever be complete and reliable enough to cover all the FAC criteria. Something to keep in mind. czar ♔ 02:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)