Talk:XEvil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 27 November 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Informal peer review (as requested)

Still start class. Articles should take a holistic approach; listing characters, items, and the like (even with brief descriptions) do not contribute much to the article as a whole. Although your willingness to use the citation format is admirable, it is not enough to cite the official website and call it a day. A quick google search turned up this HOTU writeup, which is about as good a source as can be attained for an article like this. Nifboy 08:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I'd say this article needs some reduction and wikification. It needs a longer lead, and it needs the Weapons, Items, Bonuses, and Other Objects either completely deleted or rewritten in prose format. There needs to be a gameplay section (which should probably include the previous sections), then a proper plot section with sub-headings of story and characters (which has already been written but needs cleanup). If you can find anything about development or music, that'd be great, and the reception needs to be expanded (if possible). I'll do my best to label stuff and minimize the article so it only has encyclopedic content.--Clyde Miller 15:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well after I minimized it to only encyclopedic content, it looks like a start class article.--Clyde Miller 16:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I saw an importance tag was dropped on this article, so I did some major cleanup and tried to show XEvil's notability better. To Nick Y, if you have any more suggestions or help, please let me know.--Clyde (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some improvement. The notability issue still exists however. The added references indicate that it is fun more so than notable. Some indication of popularity might be what is needed. If not that then go for being first at something or unique in some way.--Nick Y. 23:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Like this? I don't really understand why this article needs to assert it's notability, but then again I've been a little rough with notability lately. Anyway, is this enough? As open source games go, sources and facts are hard to come by, so I'm doing my best. Also a note, I've never played this game, just came across it randomly and decided to look after it in an AFD and afterward. Work, help, comments, complaints?--Clyde (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The first source and associated quote is the sort of thing needed; however notability requirements for software require multiple reliable third party coverage. The other links are mainly not coverage per se but just brief descriptions. I would encourage you to find more of the first. I think we can let this article slide for a bit without a notability tag, but the day will come that its notability will be questioned again.--Nick Y. 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well you, me, or anyone else will not find many third party reviews for online games. I did my best, and think I did alright with finding outside reviews, but I agree with you that more is better. I will keep a tab on this game for the future, and look for more outside reviews. One big helping factor in the last AFD and what continues to help it is that it is well formatted, well written, and adds encyclopedic value to the project. There is sort of an unspoken rule that if an article needs lots of work in an AFD, most people will simply say delete it. I proved that if you put some work in an article, you can save it from deletion and have it add useful information to this encyclopedia. That's why it's still here. Anyway, I'll get off my soapbox now, and thanks for helping with cleanup.--Clyde (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I just found this essay, and it changed how I look at deletions. Regarding finding good sources, this might apply: "The "multiple" qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability." I know that is no excuse, but I think I've done alright with notability. I'll keep doing my best with improving this article, and thanks for your warning.--Clyde (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)