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

Reviewer: Shooterwalker (talk · contribs) 21:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll take this one on. I'll try to get to it within a week, as I juggle a few other things. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shooterwalker: Are you still working on this review? Just wanna make sure you're still active. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 04:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was expecting to close off another review and my timing was off. Thanks for waiting and we can get started with a first pass on the article body.

Gameplay

• Try to start with a sentence or two that really describes the fundamentals of gameplay, cited to reliable sources (e.g.: it's a turn-based tactics game featuring stylized modern warfare).
• "Warbits is based heavily on Advance Wars," -> I know what you mean, but a lot of readers won't. This is probably a more useful sentence later in the section, if not in the article. See if you can explain what this game is without asking readers to look up another game.
• " The game has a single-player campaign as well as local and online multiplayer. " -> this is another sentence that buries the lead. Things like game modes should be described after you've explained how the game is fundamentally played.
• You switch a lot between "troops" and "units". I'd recommend picking one and sticking with it. Usually the term-of-art is "units".
• "which is used to" -> "which can be spent on"
• " extremely" -> does this word really add anything?
• "Terrain bonuses also factor in, with areas such as forests and towns giving units defensive boosts for standing on them, as well as hiding units during fog of war, a mode in which the map is obscured by darkness" -> "Units are effected by standing on certain terrain tiles, with areas such as forest and towns providing defensive bonuses and concealing units in the fog of war."
• I recommend swapping the order of the second paragraph: start by explaining the different unit types, and then end with " Each type of troops have their own strengths and weaknesses" and the comment about terrain.
• " with infantry the most basic unit type. It comes in two versions, Light and Heavy Infantry, the former of which is inexpensive and excels at capturing buildings, while the latter is slower and more expensive and is effective against ground vehicles." -> "The most basic units are Infantry, with Light Infantry being fast and inexpensive, and Heavy Infantry being slower and more costly. The former is more useful for capturing buildings, while the latter is more effective against ground vehicles."
• "new" doesn't really add anything here unless this is a sequel.
• Presumably all units can "move or attack"?
• "The new Ranger unit, a sniper squad that can either move or attack, is most effective on mountains" -. "The Ranger unit is most effective on mountains, designed as a sniper squad."
• "There are two types of tank-like "Mech" armored vehicles, the Light and Heavy Mech, the latter of which is more expensive, but difficult to destroy." -> I recommend placing this next to the sentence about Infantry, since it's so similar, and will help readers understand the specialization. -> "Similarly, there are two types of armored vehicles, the lower cost Light Mech and the more durable Heavy Mech."

Plot

• This section is short and could be tied into the previous section. (Gameplay and plot.) We would only really need a longer plot section for a more story-driven game.
• "Warbits takes place in a formerly war-torn world, that has agreed to use a military simulation to decide real-life political disputes rather than actual combat, saving "billions of lives"." -> "Warbits takes place in a previously war-torn world that agreed to replace deadly combat with a simulation game, allowing political disputes to be settled without the cost "billions of lives".
• " Finally" -> "Before the final mission"

That should be a good place to start. Try to focus on organizing the first gameplay section in a way that the average reader could understand, without too much context from other specific games. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shooterwalker: I've made the majority of fixes you requested or something equivalent to them. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that, and let's keep going.

Development

• This is actually very well written, as is.
• There are a few long sentences that are basically readable, but might be more readable broken into shorter sentences. (For example, second sentence in the first paragraph.)
• It's not ideal that most of this is cited to a self-published source, let alone just one source. There are truly no other sources that refer to the game development? Even if some third party sources could be brought in for minor details, it would reinforce some information with more reliable sources.

Reception

• Similarly, the writing here is good, but the WP:WEIGHT given with three paragraphs cited to three sources is out of step with what we might expect from other sources. In case you need reassurance, this game is clearly notable, with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. But it's better to keep things WP:PROPORTIONAL (one or two sentences per review), even if it leads to a shorter article overall.

Legacy

• "In 2021, the game's developers announced that Warbits+, an updated version of the original, would receive a multi-platform release on iOS, Android and Windows." -> "In 2021, the game's developers announced an updated version of the game called Warbits+, with support for iOs, Android, and Windows."

The article is well written. Ideally we can find more sources, and if not, don't be afraid to write a shorter article. Quality over quantity. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In terms of the postmortem, it's not shown in any other source. This one quotes it a bit verbatim, but it doesn't contain any new information that isn't in the postmortem. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we can wrap this up with a few more edits. We can start with the lead, and figure out how to deal with the sources too.

Lead

• "A remaster, Warbits+, was announced in 2021 for iOS, Windows and Android, with its release TBA." -> this breaks the flow, and for now might fit better at the end of the lead, or could even be removed until more significant coverage is available.
• "Critics were divided on the merits of it being so similar to Advance Wars," -> We should work something in about the development, and this could be a good place for it. "The developers were inspired to create a mobile strategy game similar to Advance Wars, earning many comparisons by critics upon its release."
• " alternatively citing it as a positive or detrimental aspect of the game, but agreed that it was executed well and would appeal to fans of the latter series." -> Journalists were mixed on whether its similarity to Advance Wars was beneficial or detrimental, but agreed it would appeal to fans of this style of game."
• Body
• I know we sometimes don't cite plot information since it's a given it is coming from the game. But the last sentence in the gameplay section feels conspicuous by the absence of a source, and a citation template would help here.
• Try to work the [touch arcade] source into the development section. I recognize that it's a bit circular as a reliable source. But it does begin to address the WP:WEIGHT issue, because we can at least say that someone cared enough to write about it. Much better than relying entirely on a primary source.
• The reception still feels a bit too weighty, in some places. Nadia Oxford gets four sentences. Carter Dodson gets six. Harry Slater and Campbell Bird get two very long sentences. Tomasso Pugilese is closer to what other articles typically do, and I'd like to see the other reviews condensed to that level. If you were looking for a way to preserve some of the additional coverage, I've seen some articles "double dip" on sources where they are organized by subject matter, instead of source. For example, you could have an additional paragraph just about comparisons to Advance Wars. (e.g.: "Reviewers noted the game's inspiration from Advance Wars.[1][2][3] X compared it favorably.[1] Y felt it was derivative.[2])

The article is really well written, and just needs a bit more work to address the WP:WEIGHT given to some sources more than others, particularly the postmortem and the reviews. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Shooterwalker: Sorry about the delay. It seems some of the issues were fixed already by User:dcdiehardfan, so thanks a lot for that. In terms of the plot section, I'm a bit eh about setting up an entire notes section and looking for a quote just to confirm a plot element that is easily confirmable by playing the game. If it had a rather long plot section I would say it's more merited, but the plot is quite basic and as you said, plot elements need no citation.

I'm also not really sure how the TouchArcade source can be worked in without being redundant. Because it's 100% redundant to the actual postmortem without any new information. I could stick it in as an additional citation, but it would be unnecessary. Is it really undue if it's from the literal developers themselves?

I did follow your advice and trim some reception. But adding more paragraphs would need a full rewrite, so unless that is strictly necessary I would definitely prefer if it was possible to roll with the current version. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your work on this. Just responding to a few points:

• Having multiple sources for the same information is never redundant. It always helps reinforce that something is not just verifiable, but also worth being covered in the first place. (Per WP:WEIGHT and WP:PROPORTION.) It would definitely help the Development section. If one editor uses one source highly affiliated with the subject, it starts to give the appearance of WP:NOTPROMO. You've already found that the development has received coverage by independent, unaffiliated third parties, so adding that kind of source would bring this into alignment with other Good Articles.
• The reception is still long. Nadia Oxford is a fine journalist, but I don't know why she gets an entire paragraph. One to two sentences per reviewer is ideal. (If you really felt that the second and third sentence from each reviewer was necessary, I still offer that you could cut and paste those into a new paragraph about a shared observation they all had. For example, all of the reviewers comparing it to Advance Wars.)

I wouldn't get too hung up on the unsourced sentence about the plot. If it's easy to add a source, they are literally the only two unsourced sentences in this article. Let me know if you have any questions, and these last few things do have some nuance. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zxcvbnm It's a privilege to help out. Let me know if you require further assistance. I already made some WP:BOLD edits to try and reduce the Reception and I would say I'm fairly decent at CEing, so feel free to reach out to me, and of course let me know if there's anything essential that you'd like me to retain, etc. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]