Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result pending

Fails GAC3 - broad overview of the topic. This is almost entirely cited to long ago news reports and advocacy group publications from when the game came out, so it does not adequately explain what sources discuss about the topic. While they aren't unreliable and that would be OK if that was all there was, this article contains literally none of the actually quite large amount of the scholarly discussion on this game [1]. We don't need to do all of them, but for a topic on RW extremism this cannot be a broad overview without scholarly sources, which this article cites nothing from. And do we have a cover of the game case or title screen, something to go in the infobox? We used to have one of the title screen but that was removed in 2023 without comment for seemingly no reason. An article like this should have something for the lead, or else it fails that aspect of the GAC too. It's also been basically entirely rewritten since it was GAN'd the first time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The most recent rewrite was done by me when I was reworking the articles of unusual games that use the Genesis3D engine. My edits focused mostly on expanding the existing article (previously with only minor changes from the original GA) with additional journalistic sources and bringing the writing more in line with current standards. As it was a quick side-project on an existing GA, I didn't extensiely check for scholarly sources, but that is something that can be easily addressed. I will look into it in the coming days. As for the title image, using screenshots in the infobox is discouraged (per the template documentation), so I removed it in search of a better alternative. While there is a scan of the inlay, it is of rather low quality, which is why I avoided uploading it. Looking it up now, there is a logo on the game's archived website. Would you consider this a viable replacement? IceWelder [✉] 20:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@IceWelder Your rewrite was a definite improvement, it was much further away from fulfilling our current standards before. For curiosity's sake, what was the other GA? I could help address the scholarly sourcing issue as well it just seems to be missing a lot of it which is why I sent it to GAR instead of addressing it myself.

Ah, did not know that with the screenshots - still I think the title screen was better than nothing. The logo would be fine. Just something in it to represent the game. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two other Genesis3D GAs I wrote were Catechumen (video game) and Special Force (2003 video game), although the latter might also need some scholarly input now that I think about it. I will look into everything during the weekend, but I believe the article is definitely salvagable. IceWelder [✉] 09:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went through 10 pages of Google Scholar and added what I could access. A lot of papers only name-dropped the game in lists of extremist games, others were merely about the actual concept of that name. When the source was a paid-access book, I checked Google Books but found little cite-worth content. I added eight paper citations as a result, as well as the logo. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 20:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you added looked good. I still recall seeing some stuff about this in other books, so I am going to look for what I can and add that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added some stuff to further reading that has sigcov, I will add from it soon. My remaining concern is I don't think Běláč is reliable? PhD theses are generally reliable, Masters theses can be if cited widely, but bachelors theses don't undergo a lot of review. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have strong feelings for that source, no, although it does provide some good details for the gameplay section. If you feel like it is not even good enough for that, I can take it out. IceWelder [✉] 19:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looked at it again and removed the Běláč sourced. Also, since the Bowman sources was available online, I added the few details from it to the article. IceWelder [✉] 16:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]