# Talk:Pssst

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pssst/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review. Freikorp (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors: 
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Perhaps mention in the lead that Tim and Chris are brothers, but up to you.
Done JAGUAR  14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
"Pssst is the second game" - do you think that should be was the second game?
Fixed JAGUAR  14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
"The game received positive reviews upon release" - Considering only 'Home Computing Weekly' and 'Personal Computer Games' seem to have reviewed it upon release, I think you should reword to say it received positive reviews specifically from these two publications.
Yeah, the shortage of reviews is a nightmare! And there were only a handful of gaming magazines in 1983. Repharased JAGUAR  14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
"It was placed 40th on the "Best Software of All Time" list by Personal Computer Games." When?
December 1983, added JAGUAR  14:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
"three types of alien insect" - why is the word "alien" relevant? And can you clarify what makes the insects different?
Clarified. "Alien" sounded a bit gimmicky and the insects are only differently coloured JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
" the player will be able to the next level" - huh? Did you mean the player will be able to advance to the next level?
Oops. Fixed JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
" or they make contact with an insect" - define contact, will a life be lost if the insect touches any part of the plant?
Clarified, only if the player makes contact with an insect JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I think the retrospective review should be placed at the end of the section, in chronological order. And it would be good if you could flesh out the review a little.
Done, I've fleshed it out as much as possible. The reviewer's "review" of the game was one sentence long! JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:  
B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Is there a source for "Thyrgodian Megga Chrisanthodil"?
There is a source from Angelfire, but I'm not sure if it's reliable as it's not mentioned on WP:VG/RS. I decided not to risk it so I removed the name of the plant from the article JAGUAR  15:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
C. No original research: 
Is it broad in its coverage? 
A. Major aspects: 
B. Focused: 
Is it neutral? 
Fair representation without bias: 
Is it stable? 
No edit wars, etc: 
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic? 
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Placing on hold until issues are addressed. Well done overall on the article. Freikorp (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Freikorp! I think I've addressed everything. I remember that this article was very frustrating to write as I spent over an hour just to scrape some reviews. The game was misspelled Psst, Psssst and Pssssst in virtually every publication, so that made it even more difficult to find reviews. The longest extract I could find was just a snippet. I have no idea why this game has less coverage than other Ultimate games. JAGUAR  15:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Great work, i'm happy for this to pass now. :) Freikorp (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pssst/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.
This article contains several serious sourcing issues, especially in the references section, which will need to be almost entirely re-written. Considering the number of issues, especially in relation to the amount of text, it appears to me that the reviewer did not actually check the sources to make sure that they said what the article claimed that they said. Even if all of these issues are fixed, the text of the article will have changed so much that the article should be delisted and re-reviewed, by a different reviewer that will go line by line making sure that these types of sourcing problems don't make a return.

In Gameplay
"The plant grows from a pot at the bottom centre of the screen, and spray cans containing three different pesticides are located on ledges on each side of the screen. Bonus items such as fertiliser and spades appear on unoccupied ledges which will increase both the players score and the plant's growth rate.", sourced to "PSST is this the Ultimate?" -- The given source does not say any of that.
"As the plant grows, it will sprout leaves; these both increase the growth rate and increase its vulnerability to the insects. Once the plant reaches a predetermined height, the player will be able to advance to the next level.", sourced to "PSST is this the Ultimate?" -- The given source does not say any of that. The second of the two sentences can, however, be supported by "Pssst review"
"A life will be deducted whenever the plant dies or the player makes contact with an insect.", sourced to "Pssst review" -- The given source does not say any of that.
In Background
The citation "List of Ultimate games compatable with Interface 2". Popular Computing Weekly 2 (40): 1. 6 October 1983. Retrieved 30 September 2015. -- The name of the article isn't "List of Ultimate games compatable with Interface 2", it's "ZX Interface 2 direct by mail".
I don't know if you're aware of this, but ref titles never have to be word-by-by exact on what the actual title it's referring to. I, including thousands of other users on Wikipedia do it all the time. JAGUAR  17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Where are you getting that from? In the template documentation for the template you used it says "title: Title of source.". There is no mention of the ability to use whatever else you think fits as the title, and I've never heard of a citation system that would allow that, being that using something other than the actual title as the title makes it difficult to re-locate a source. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I... I'm not even going to reply to that. JAGUAR  20:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The point of citations is so that other people can find the sources. If you make up a title instead of using the one that the source uses, it's useless to someone else that comes along later and tries to search for the source by searching for the title. Yes, in this case we happen to have a link directly to the source, but that's not always going to be the case. I challenge you to find a single established citation system that allows you to make up a title instead of giving the one that the source uses. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
... "but no marketing experience in the video game sector.", sourced to "The Best of British – Ultimate" -- The source doesn't say that; it says that they didn't use their experience as arcade machine designers in their marketing.
Yes it does. It's in twenty other Ultimate games I've brought up to GA, so feel free to delist them too. JAGUAR  17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
In Reception
"In the second issue of Personal Computer Games, the game was placed 40th on the "Best Software of All Time" list.", sourced to  "PCG Soft Hits list" -- The source doesn't say that. It clearly says at the bottom that it's a chart of top selling software from the past month.
"PCG Soft Hits" stands for "Personal Computer Game's Software Hits" - it's not a list for best-selling software of the past month. JAGUAR  17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
You're absolutely wrong. The page literally says "This chart is compiled from returns covering the last four weeks. Returns are drawn from a continuous retail panel of over 100 shops, and are cross-referenced to listings from wholesalers and multiple chain stores, weighted according to the number of outlets. This chart is copyright, MRIB Computers, 1983." The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"In the fourth issue of Personal Computing Games, Pssst was chosen as having the "best" graphics out of any game in 1983.", sourced to "Search hots up for game of 1983" -- The source doesn't use the word "best", so you can't say that it does.
Thank you for fixing this issue. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
"However, they considered Pssst to be a "taste of things to come" regarding the critical acclaim of future games released by Ultimate.", sourced to "Pssst – retrospective review" -- The source doesn't say that. You took the statement "a taste of things to come" as a reference to future critical acclaim for the studio. The source does not actually say that, however. It could just as easily be read as a statement on improvements to game graphics.
And it doesn't say it's related to the graphics either. I can't just guess what the author is trying to say! You admit that "It could just as easily be read as a statement on improvements to game graphics", so should I guess that? JAGUAR  17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
No, if the source isn't clear about what it means, you should not say anything. WP:OR defines original research as, in part "to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Saying that it referred to the graphics would be just as much original research as saying that it refereed to future critical acclaim. Niether is supported by the source, and therefore neither can be included. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

This is out of order. If anybody is reading this, I recommend this GAR to be closed as The Squirrel Conspiracy has hasn't got a clue what he's doing here. After reading through its DYK nomination, he went on to exclaim "How the hell is this GA?" and then made a completely false revert on Pssst's only review because he couldn't find the review on the top left corner of the page, which does indeed state that the graphics are colourful and smooth moving. Freikorp is a good reviewer and I respect his judgement, if he didn't think the article met the GA criteria then he wouldn't have passed it. I'm not being rude, but you're making false accusations of "misquotes" and I don't think you're aware of half of Wikipedia's guidelines. I'm not going to bother with this, I have better things to do. JAGUAR  17:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
If you don't bother with it, then this time next week I will delist it. Your choice. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Beyond the sourcing issues (which may not be an issue after all), is there any reason to delist this article? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Kiyoshiendo: I'm amenable to letting it stay listed if all of the issues are addressed. My concern with doing so, however, is that with the amount of changes that are needed relative to the amount of text in the article overall, the end product is going to be pretty different from what was reviewed during the initial GAN. That being said, if all of these issues are addressed, the article will have been re-reviewed line by line, and the end product should be fine. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any issues which haven't been fixed since the initial listing two weeks ago. Most of your concerns have already been fixed, like other editors have posted. Citation formats don't have to be pitch-perfect to be a good article (see Cave Story, a featured article). --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Kiyoshiendo. I don't see any real issues on why this should be delisted, and doesn't meet the criteria for doing so. I don't want to sound too defensive, but The Squirrel Conspiracy is exaggerating by sending this to GAR. I'm clueless on why he reverted this, when it was clearly in the review. He said in the edit summary "that's absolutely not what the source said" when the review states "Graphics are smooth moving and colourful". But yet he still removed it. With confusing deletions like that, I'm afraid I can't take this seriously. JAGUAR  19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Kiyoshiendo: Only one of the eight issues I brought up has been fixed, the second one in the Reception section. I tried to fix some of the other issues, but Jaguar reverted me. This reassessment nomination has been open for less than half a day; I think that it should remain open to give Jaguar time to either (1) fix the other issues, (2) state that he won't stop me from fixing the other issues, or (3) conclusively state that he won't address any of the other issues. The article can stay listed if either of the first two options happen, but not if Jaguar continues to blow these concerns off. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Jaguar
- The first edit was to fix the "best" issue (Reception #2 in the above list). The rest of that edit was copyediting. You've since fixed the issue with your own edit.
- The second edit was to fix the "taste of things to come" issue (Reception #3 in the above list). This issue is still unresolved.
- The third edit was to remove the line which you said was a "Best Software of All Time", but which the source says is a top selling in the month list (Reception #1 in the above list). This issue is also still unresolved.
- The fourth edit was a revert of your revert.
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But Squirrel, I can't take you seriously if you're going to delete valid information from the article and re-revert me stating that I was misrepresenting everything! You haven't explained to me why you deleted "colour" and "smooth moving" when it was in the review. I understand that you're a new user but it's infuriating me when you're making a drama out of the most trivial things. Even Freikorp thinks you've taken this too far. I'm going to try to address the points above only where logic takes me. I'd be glad to open this discussion to uninvolved VG member - in other words, somebody who knows what they're on about! JAGUAR  20:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Jaguar I think that you're deflecting in the issues that your article has by hyperfocusing on copyedits and on hold old this account is. I have absolutely no problem if you want to leave "colour" and "smooth moving" in the article; that's why that wording doesn't appear in the list of problems on this page. I removed those words because the reception section was crammed full of quotes, and I was trying to make it read smoother by saying the same thing without using the quotes. It was a copyedit, done at the same time that I was addressing more serious issues that your article did and still has. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar: I think that this discussion has gotten a little heated, and right now there's a lot of back and forth and we're no closer to resolving the disagrement. I don't want to spend my time on the project arguing, I want to spend it writing articles. How about we leave this for a day or two, and then come back with fresh heads and see if there are any points above that we can agree on. If we're still stuck, I agree that bringing in an uninvolved third party might be the best course of action, although I'd prefer that it be someone either from WP:GOCE who can focus on the technicalities of the dispute or someone from WP:3O who can focus on de-escalation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The Squirrel Conspiracy, I can't help but think you set the tone of this conversation when you decided to escalate this to GAR, even though it was already made clear to you that there were two editors who were willing to address any issues on the articles talk page. I think that's a pretty aggressive move on your part, especially since you've only been editing for a few weeks and clearly (and understandably) are unfamiliar with many wiki policies. Freikorp (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Freikorp That may be the case, although it wasn't my intention. I didn't see your comment at the Help Desk until after I had already created the GAR, all I saw up to that point was Jaguar's comments on my talk page and Jaguar's comment at the help desk: "No, an article must always go through GAR if there is a chance for it to be delisted."
I certainly apologize for my role in this getting so heated. There's nothing that we can do about what's already happened though, so what's important is that we figure out a way to resolve this without being heated going forward. I'd certainly like to make that attempt, and if it proves to be impossible, I have no objection to bringing in an uninvolved editor to help sort everything out. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll do it. Can you please repeat your concerns in a concise manner? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 02:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm going to have to ask that someone else step in. Your account is three days old, and one of Jaguar's major concerns is that I don't know policy because my account is too new. I happen to think that that's spurious logic, but throwing another new account at a problem that's been exasperated by my having a new account could possibly make the whole thing harder to resolve. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
There's no issue about your account being new. All Jaguar is suggesting is to read the good article policy and focus to what's relevant there. As the Wikipedia:Service awards page says:
"Please remember that neither the number of edits, nor the length of time from when an account was created are, in and of themselves, good indicators of the quality of an editor's contributions or diplomatic ability."
I've been lurking for many years, eh? Would you like to nominate somebody else? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
You know what, sure, go ahead. At this point, I just want to get this mess wrapped up so that I can go back to writing articles.
If Jaguar is fine with this edit that I just made, then three of the eight issues from above will have been resolved (if not, those things will need to be discussed too). That leaves:
- In several places in the gameplay section, Jaguar describes features of the game and then gives citations for those descriptions, however the sources he cites don't contain the material he says that they cite
- In the background section, the article says that the developers had "no marketing experience in the video game sector", but the sources says that the developers "made no marketing mileage out of this coin-op background". I don't think that the statement in the article is supported by the statement in the source.
- In the reception section, the article quotes a source saying Pssst was a "taste of things to come". The article states that this is in reference to future Ultimate games being critically acclaimed, but I don't believe that the source says that. If Jaguar is willing to accept this edit, this issue will also be resolved.
The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Summary by Kiyoshiendo:
I've looked over the disputes between User:Jaguar and User:The Squirrel Conspiracy. It appears to me a case of misunderstanding the writing in the citations, as the review authors chose their words poorly. In sum:

The gameplay section had citations in places that the sources didn't support. I removed the cites, and they will need to be replaced by new sources.
The background section had an odd wording choice. I take it to mean the developers had failed to market their games, not that they had no experience in doing so.
I find the wording in the reception section adequate for its purpose. There's no need to split hairs over it.
I think that this is a simple issue which has been muddle through a day of debate. Both Jaguar and The Squirrel Conspiracy were acting in good faith, and some minor issues halted their actions.
If Jaguar has no further questions, may The Squirrel Conspiracy please close this reassessment? --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for assessing the article, Kiyoshiendo. I'm sorry if I came across as nasty (it's never like me) but I was frustrated on why a GAR was initiated even when other editors disapproved of it. Squirrel can either close this or make some changes, as long as the article still represents whatever is in the sources then it should be fine. JAGUAR  20:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Closed: Kept as GA I too am going to extend my thanks to Kiyoshiendo, and I to am going to apologize for my part in how nasty this discussion would up getting. I think that most of these issues have been addressed, and while there are things that I would do differently in the article, there are no longer any issues that would justify keeping this GAR open. I sincerely hope that there will be no lasting hard feelings as a result of this (especially since I was halfway through copyediting an article that Jaguar is now doing a GAN review for, which tells me that we're likely to cross paths many times in the future). For my part, that is the case. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there won't be any long-term hard feelings. :) Freikorp (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)