Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula (talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion review (@vrxces)[edit]

Unfortunately I think this falls short in several areas but not sure if to the point of a WP:QUICKFAIL. The core problem is that the notable aspects of this article are really about an urban legend; the character does not exist, so there is not much to really say in terms of information normally available for a character. So the sourcing would have to be improved by some measure to pass I think. This review is a work in progress but some early initial comments are below. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of at least one more scholar source that is out there that I am yet to integrate text from into the article, and I haven't updated some text related to the article since I cut out a source from CBR. I can agree with the lack of information specifically on the character (since, well, Herobrine isn't exactly a true "character") being lackluster, though I think the article can be worked with even if an extensive amount of work is required as you mentioned. λ NegativeMP1 04:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, for me a WP:QUICKFAIL would be something with the same number of sources where there were little to no WP:RS or the coverage was just so light to suggest there wasn't a lot of hope the article could be improved to standard. The "not a true character" thing isn't a barrier to the GA but more maybe just signalling that the article is trying to do two things at once: discuss the character and discuss the urban legend, which it interweaves a little. Thanks and I hope this isn't so much a disappointment as it is an opportunity to really flesh out the article. Happy to work with you on this and I hope to provide more specific and complete feedback soon. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NegativeMP1 and @Vrxces: Should we call this review off? It has been inactive for two weeks, and it's best if we give this article more time. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, has some source issues that might need some work. No barrier to renomination at any time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I agree. I was wondering on whether or not to withdraw for the time being to give this article more time in the oven, especially since I've found other sourcing since the review started. I'm perfectly fine calling this review off. λ NegativeMP1 04:37, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? Y Yes, mostly under WP:VGLAYOUT. I'm mindful that this is part character part urban legend so any idiosyncrasies aren't really a problem.

Is the article broad enough in its coverage and contains reliable sourcing? N Generally not. The article is heavily sourced from the Morton article which, compared with an article with few sources, raises several problems:

• The Powell thesis is a doctorate thesis, which is fine but as noted in WP:SCHOLARSHIP it should be used with caution as it may be a primary source.

• The Menotti paper dedicates a paragraph to describing the general context of Herobrine sourced from the Minecraft Wiki, which I would not call critical commentary. I think there is not much to this sadly beyond a valid use of the source to say that Powell links Herobrine to an example of user-created recordings of video games that evidence how community practices expand the imagination of the game and potential of the medium beyond its niche.

• The Guinness poll suggests popularity but not so much critical reception, as the source is the views of website users and therefore by extension user-sourced.

• The Red Bull source is purely descriptive part of a list and strikes me as non-WP:SIGCOV given that it is briefly mentioned as an example of a creepy moment.

• Unfortunately the Flint et. al. paper is not a strong source. The aim of the paper was to create a mixed reality experience with children's user-generated content to enhance an interactive virtual recreation of a sculpture park. Part of the activity engaged children to create a monster with a backstory to inhabit the world. One paragraph in the paper is directed to observing that one child designed a monster, Brian, that was unexpectedly out of the scope of what the researchers asked for and the researchers saw this as an opportunity to create a lead antagonist. The researchers then discovered the characters was based on the Herobrine meme.
  • So unfortunately the statement The Herobrine character is treated as a mythological destructive character, thus, rather than our initially perceived view that the story might be related to myths, in response to our informants it developed more similarities with superhero characters and draws directly from Minecraft folklore is not referring to a critical assessment of Herobrine in general, but in reference to the monster's inclusion in the narrative context of the project, which the Wikipedia article text extrapolates to something quite wider.

Do the sources cited verify the text in the article? N

• See above re. how the Flint et al. paper is depicted in the article text.

Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? Y Sources cited, purpose stated mostly.

• Is the Minecraft Wiki the likely originating source of that image?
• I note the photo is CC-licensed and does not need a justification.

Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination?

• Reception and legacy:
  • The Powell thesis as cited is not evidence for mainstream journalistic opinion.
  • VG247 place Herobrine in a list of the best "fan works" and not "creations of the Minecraft community", there is a meaningful semantic difference between these.
  • Providing context to mentioning Gabriel Menotti by name, you may wish to specify his current academic tenure, given he is an associate professor.

Original review (@TrademarkedTWOrantula)[edit]

Oh my God. Herobrine's here. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna pass this GA review over to @Vrxces. I have to go somewhere, and unfortunately I have to sleep early. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 03:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No copyvios, per Earwig.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Herobrine's origins, design, characteristics, reception, and impact are all covered within the article.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Obviously.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Herobrine character and original image sighting are correctly tagged. Flickr image of Herorbrine cosplayer is freely licensed.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Render of Herobrine and screenshot are relevant (of course they are), and the cosplayer image is, well... passable.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Wait, that's all the coverage there is to be found?
• Y No considerable copyvios, according to Earwig. Top result is 14% similarity.
• Y No cleanup banners or citation needed tags.
• Y This page is stable.
• Y This is the first GA review.