This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia
I'm not sure File:Perfect Dark Japanese Ad.jpg has a strong enough fair use rationale to meet WP:NFCC (the marketing of the Japanese game is not a major part of the article, so it could easily be cut without being detrimental to the article as a whole) and File:Perfect Dark Gameplay.jpg could use a more detailed fair use rationale.
For the most part, sources used seem high-quality and reliable.
Did question what makes Unseen64.net a high-quality source. Looks like a blog with limited or no editorial oversight, and no evidence the author specifically is an expert per WP:SPS.
Did a spot-check of statements attributed to [ current refs] 1, 5, 9, 10, 19, 21, 23, 25, 31, 42, 46, 52, 55, 60, 62.
Ref 42 was used to cite the photograph feature, but doesn't support it being cut from the game. Fixed myself. Didn't spot other issues with verification problems or close paraphrasing (aside from the mentioned tangentially-related issue of quotes mentioned below.)
Stuff being cited to current ref 28 (the Making of video) should really have more accurate location info than just the video itself (rough timestamps, quotes, etc.)
Prose is a bit awkward in spots, but nothing major that I don't think can't be addressed. I performed a light copyedit to try and address some of the flow issues; the remaining thing I think could use looking at is overuse of quotes, especially in the reception/legacy sections. Also, given that Perfect Dark is now much older and there are retrospectives, better/more authoritative sources could likely be used to for some of the topic sentences. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk15:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review and copy edits. I'll try to make those adjustments in the next few days as I'm a bit busy right now. Cheers --Niwi3 (talk) 09:02, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I added a stronger rationale to those images, managed to replace that Unseen64.net ref with a better one, and added timestamps to the making of video. I also made some copy-edits and other minor adjustments here and there. Overall, the article looks pretty good to me. --Niwi3 (talk) 14:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The video does not have the official checkmark (indicating it has been verified as theirs), and GameSpot reliability depends on the contributor. There is another video. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The video has been cited by some reliable sources, including by a staff member from GameSpothere and an associate editor from Game Informerhere. I can cite these articles instead of the youtube video, but we won't be able to include timestamps. I'll double-check the contributor of all the GameSpot links tomorrow as I'll have more time. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can cite the print source, adding the video as a note at the end of the citation template, but before the ref tag. An example:
<ref>{{cite web |url= https://bpna.org.uk/_common/show_unpro_doc.php?doc=2021Consensusstatementonchildhoodneuropsychiatricpresentations_72d9cfce4e96a31e4f40cb3ba943cb43.pdf |publisher= British Paediatric Neurology Association |title= Consensus statement on childhood neuropsychiatric presentations, with a focus on PANDAS/PANS |date= April 2021 |access-date= November 24, 2021}} See [https://bpna.org.uk/?page=pans-pandas summary here].</ref> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:SandyGeorgia: I'll have to go looking, but I'm curious about the highlighting of GameSpot given it's an extremely long-running site at this point with an entrenched editorial staff and oversight. I'd put it up there with IGN and sites like Game Informer is some of the oldest established sites still running strong. The video author isn't verified (Youtube doesn't checkmark most of its accounts, same as Twitter) but it's legitimate, so I think it serves as a reliable primary source in this instance (and isn't used too much to cause concerns with undue weight.) I will take another look at the article this weekend, but it's looking better at first blush. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk18:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Sandy is referring to how (Decade+ ago now) GameSpot used to have member reviews in addition to staff reviews. However all of the sources in use appear to be staff. -- ferret (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Fuchs and SandyGeorgia: "what to flag" It's a mix of known bad sources, WP:RSN discussions, WP:RSP and common sense. For Gamespot, I believe I included it due to user-generated FAQs and similar user-generated submissions. If everything comes from the staff, there's no real concern. Headbomb {t · c · p · b}21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrapped the Making Of video as suggested above, just in case. Also, I double-checked all the GameSpot links and I didn't find any user-generated content. I should note that the website was completely re-designed circa 2013, resulting in former staff member profiles being categorized as "Member" (Jeff Gerstmann's current user profile is a good example). However, by checking the archived URLs of old articles (pre-2013), it's still possible to see that they were staff members because their names are followed by the label "GameSpot". Also, none of the URLs suggest any user-generated content. Here's a summary of the GameSpot links that the article is currently using (again, just in case):
