Talk:The Sims 2: University

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that bugs reported during the development of The Sims 2: University included "zombies can't fall in love" and "zombies walk on water"? Source: Howe, Hunter (18 February 2005). "The Sims 2 University Designer Diary #3 - Going Gold". GameSpot. Archived from the original on 27 January 2012. Retrieved 8 September 2023.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Haggai Chisom Ndubuisi

Converted from a redirect by Vaticidalprophet (talk). Self-nominated at 08:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/The Sims 2: University; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will review this. Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 04:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• What a great article! Article is long and new enough, is well sourced and appears to be free of copyright violations or paraphrasing. Source and article matches hook. Everything is good, happy to approve. Panamitsu (talk) ^{Please ping on reply} 04:25, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Sims 2: University/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vrxces (talk · contribs) 12:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating. I'm happy to address the Sims 2 expansion pages you have nominated, one at a time. At first glance there doesn't seem to be any major impediments to GA in the long run, but some work is needed. There are a few observations across the three articles that stand out in terms of providing feedback, mainly stylistic quirks, source choice and focus on trivia. I will put something together when I can. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks so much for picking this one up, and I'm looking forward to seeing your comments! I've written a number of GAs, but video games are a little bit of a new area. Sourcing is a little tricky -- the mid-2000s have a lot of linkrot/half-digitized stuff/etc -- and there are some spots where I ended up with sources I'm not totally happy with to support things that "everyone knows, but not many people have bothered to mention" (e.g. the timeframe in which the EPs were released). Vaticidalprophet 12:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Starting now. I hope you don't mind if I approach this in blocks - there's a lot of ground to cover. This isn't a sign of a poor article - if anything it just means there's plenty of opportunities to make the article better than it is. I hope it doesn't come off as too full-on or negative, you've done great work so far! Also mindful I might be stating the obvious in places - only doing so as you said you haven't done a lot of video game articles. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, how's it going @Vaticidalprophet? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I might put the article as a fail as I note it hasn't been touched in over a month. This is not a problem at all and you are more than welcome to re-nominate when you have time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:01, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Criteria

Comments

General

• More information about the usual standards of video game articles can be found at WP:MOS/VG.

Background and development

• WP:DETAIL suggests that articles should be kept concise in summary style to focus on the subject matter, which is also an aspect of the GAN criteria. The first two paragraphs provide context for The Sims 2 and its expansions, which could adequately be addressed in the content of the primary article. The only relevant sentence is that the expansion was the first of eight released between 2005 and 2008.

• MOS:QUOTE suggests that quotations can be used to "illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". I note the University, Nightlife and Open for Business pages each use a quote box to highlight an amusing quote you encountered in your research. My view is that these aren't necessary as they don't reinforce the core in the body of their section, give undue weight to the source, and have the tenor of drawing to attention an amusing or playful aside, which isn't really their purpose. I don't want to suck the fun out of editing, but I'm not sure if they're ideal.

Suggestions

• Shorten the use of information about the primary game to focus on the expansion as the primary subject matter.
• Reconsider the use of a quote template for quotes that do not add context to the body of the text.

Soundtrack

• This section is based upon paraphrasing one secondary source, which has the tenor of WP:UNDUE in making the soundtrack's significance seem more pivotal than it may be. It could be better to integrate this into the development section in shortened form.

Suggestions

• Reconsider the use of a discrete Soundtrack section.

Specific suggestions

• Robi Kauker - Remove the red wikilink

Reception and legacy

Contemporary reception

General comments

• Identifying independent and reliable sources requires the curation of which sources are more helpful to cite and quote in an overview of the subject matter, especially where many sources exist. WP:VG/S can be helpful to make calls on what sources are more reliable to include.

• If a video game has a large amount of review sources, a review score template is used to summarize the ratings. A good rule of thumb is that this should only really cover sources that have a shortened code as these tend to be the sources covered under WP:VG/S.

• Research to find online sources can be through review aggregators such as Metacritic and MobyGames, and print sources using the search function of the Internet Archive. Note that these do tend to capture reliable and unreliable sources, so a bit of sifting through is still necessary.

• Doing a bit of background research, my impression is that the key review sources for the expansion are: Computer Gaming World [1], Eurogamer [2], GameInformer [3], GamesRadar [4], GamePro [5], Game Revolution [6], GameSpot [7], GameSpy [8], GameZone [9], IGN [10], and PC Zone [11].

• You can see with the abundance of reliable sources above, that the other sources that are not reliable (Mygamer) or possibly reliable (Yahoo! Games, G4) do not need to play the role that they do when better sources exist to reinforce the points in the contemporary reviews section.

• More sources and less emphasis on individual comments in reviews from authors probably merits a slightly different approach to the review section. The manual of style describes this as "thematic" organization of review content by the key points they make signposted by lead sentences. At a brief glance, I assume these might be topics like the assessment of the new gameplay features, utility and style of the items/objects added to the game, and more conceptual remarks about the likeness of the expansion's representation of the college experience.

• You may like to demarcate Sales as a subsection of the Reception section as per WP:MOS/VG, given there is enough content there.

Suggestions

• Add in a review template with an expanded set of reliable sources.
• Focus the prose of the section on an overview of broader sources organized by theme, identified with lead sentences.
• Omit the use of less reliable sources where more reliable commentary is available.
• Consider adding in a Sales subsection.

Later reception

• The "later reception" probably needs an overhaul. Generally, sources such as Game Rant and Screen Rant fall under the category of "listicles that have little news or reporting significance" as per WP:VG/S. It can be tempting to include these sources to flesh out an article and include interesting trivia, but the section reads as a collection of sources that mention University after publication and not evidence of the game's "substantial impact" in later works or culture: see WP:MOS/VG.

Suggestions

• Reconsider the content in the section if it concerns trivia or minor references that do not suggest the game's impact in later works or culture.
• Omit the use of less reliable sources where more reliable commentary is available.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Sims 2: University/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 01:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Dibsing ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the comments at the original GAN regarding the background section. I've found background sections very valuable in my articles because they allow you to brief the reader on context rather than having to step all over yourself doing it in the real meat of the article.
• I also don't see the problem with the quoteboxes, especially as pertains to the GACR
• Total nitpick: that it's the first expansion could be merged into the first sentence of para 3, to lose the choppy third sentence
• You could link Ivy league in that guy's quote
  • This one seems to be done. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• Maybe link zombies?
  • I'm an enthusiastic linker, you know that, but -- is our Zombie article unexpectedly good or something? I kind of assumed it'd be one of those unimpressive mythology-ish articles that wouldn't exactly be of much value in context. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I obviously won't fail the GA on it, but I've never seen article quality be the determining factor as to whether or not to link.
      • Okay, wait, I was convinced and went to add that link, but I see it's been added in the lead now. Should we duplink it? Vaticidalprophet 20:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
        • Sure, makes sense to link it in the body too. I won't hold the GAN up over it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Dupelink of Sims 2 in Gameplay
  • I think this is a justifiable duplink by current standards (once per section allowed). Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• "...and able to get engaged but not married." - should be "and are able to" I think
  • This one also seems done. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• I would suggest moving the last sentence of Gameplay para 1 to earlier in the paragraph, as it reads more like an introductory/context-giving sentence to me
• I think it's Psychedelia not Psychedelica (and link?)
  • As is this one. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    • No it isn't. It's still spelled wrong and not linked. Did you mean this comment as a reply to my comment above about Gameplay para 1?
      • ...huh, article says and home décor themed around psychedelia and high fantasy as its only hit for "psychedeli", and I'm sure it said that on the 26th as well. Maybe I screwed up somewhere. Vaticidalprophet 20:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
        • I swear on god that it still had the old version. So weird. Maybe I was looking at an older revision for some reason...? Anyway, chalk it up to my error.
• With regards to the Soundtrack section, it feels like an appropriate amount of information, especially when compared to other packs in the series. I will note that it's by no means improper for a section to rely on a single source - for example at the point Islanders passed GA, the Development section was comprised mainly of information gleaned from a single substantial source.
• Score boxes are not mandatory, even at the FA level.
• The review section is appropriately organized by theme and appears to reasonably summarize the primary themes that came up in reviews.
• The previous reviewer pointed out Mygamer as an issue. It is not listed at WP:VGRS, so there is no conclusion on its reliability. However, I would note that using lesser-known sources is not prohibited, even at the FAC level, especially if a) highest-quality sources are not being excluded and b) they are being cited solely for their own opinion and not any contentious facts. Same applies to any other non-deprecated sources.
• I'm not sure you need a "Nonetheless" for Scott Osborne, but I won't die on the hill of it
• It feels odd that the first mention of the rating comes in the reception section. I might mention it elsewhere first
  • hmm. I was hoping the ratings would have more coverage than they did -- it was kind of weird that people weren't talking about it for Nightlife, where the T-ratedness is even more frankly absurd than for Uni. I don't see an easy way to fit it in elsewhere, because there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the-rating-itself rather than reviews making fun of it, but I agree it's a little awkward. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I think it could work under Gameplay, para 1, last sentence. You could mention that the game uses euphemisms for "mature" college activities such as drinking.
      • I've added a little about it there. Vaticidalprophet 20:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
• I might move the sales numbers outside of the contemporary reception section, up to join the sole paragraph before that section
  • Done. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• "described it as "almost two decades later..." - The intro wording for this quote doesn't sit properly with the actual quote. Maybe instead of "described it as", use "wrote that it was"?
  • Tweaked to that. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
• "Fan Fiction and Fan Communities in the Age of the Internet" I smell a potential article
• I'm not entirely sure the refs to Lozano's CV etc are needed, and it seems odd to call out all the detail about her being a then-PHD.
  • I think I mentioned this one -- this was re. "the book chapter was under a different name that seemed contextually inappropriate to use in the article", so I wanted to use the cites/text to clarify that they were actually the same person without getting into it in the article itself or citing the previous name. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I vaguely remember that conversation but can't remember where we had it. Either way, sure.
• First sentence of para 1 feels knotted up in itself. "The 'cowplant' career reward for sims on the Natural Science career track remains the subject of critical attention." works just as well.
• I don't think the details of the cowplant's function needs to be here; it belongs under Gameplay. This section should focus solely on reception to it.
• Hm. I'm not sure there's actually enough sourcing to justify the cowplant paragraph. One 2020 source is not enough to support the assertion that the cowplant has received continued attention. Do you have anything more from post-release?
  • This one is a pain, frankly, because a lot of "just barely not good enough" sources focus on it, as does a lot of colloquial attention. It would look weird not to have it, but is a tad awkward to source, yeah. Not entirely sure what to do (I tend to lean keep in these situations, because there's kind of a "principle of not removing content people will expect" going on, but this 'bends the rules' a tad as written). Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I'm all for bending over backwards to include information, but if the sourcing isn't there, I don't think we can justify saying that the feature has remained the subject of attention. Either we need a source that explicitly says it has been (and The Gamer article doesn't), or we need enough sourcing that it's self-evident.
      • Eh, fair enough. I've excised this one. Vaticidalprophet 20:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Take your time getting back to me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

This nomination has been sitting here for 3 months; should it be closed or are you planning on returning to it @Vaticidalprophet:? --PresN 17:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I've been very busy, but intend to do this soon. Vaticidalprophet 17:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Checking over real quick: it seems about half of these are already done, so I'll check those off and look through. Premeditated Chaos, have replied to/addressed several of these/marked off addressed ones. Vaticidalprophet 20:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Have responded above, assume anything I didn't respond to is fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Good to go here! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.