Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:Sabacc/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 10:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will review this one shortly. —Kusma (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Progress and general comments

[edit]
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Content and prose review

[edit]
  • Lead: Some cites in the lead can be ok (MOS:LEADCITE, but this is overkill
  • primarily-fictional better without hyphen
  • Mention real world versions in lead?
  • History: perhaps you could do this chronologically, and consider separating in-film/book information from the real world sales of games?
    Works for me. —Kusma (talk) 13:50, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it that the "sabacca" didn't make it into the final version of the screenplay? Is this a primary source or is there commentary in the screenplays book?
  • I had to check Wookieepedia to learn that fictional Sabacc has some high-tech "shifting" features. Is it correct that the name wasn't trademarked until 2018?
  • The citation overkill makes me worried (more than three citations for a single sentence are usually a sign that something is wrong).
  • the first mention of the game at which tables Han won his starship is disentangle the prose
  • Can you try to discuss the different real world versions a bit more separately? I'm a bit confused as to what is what and how they differ. For example, this Galaxy's Edge Sabacc seems to include dice? What are the dice for?
    • The problem is that there are next to no RS for this, reviews are few and not very reliable, and I am not fond of using manuals (primary sources) - plus some of them seem not even available online. Differences between editions would be good to discuss but I am afraid we are crossing into fancruft/OR territory given that most differences are not covered by RSes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I was kind of wondering whether we're getting into notability questions here. The real-world importance seemed to me to be mostly shown by the real-world games, but if we can't say anything about them other than that they exist... —Kusma (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rules: I find it confusing to have an "original ruleset" mentioned: which one do you mean as there is no "official" ruleset? Do players draw cards to improve their hand? There seem to be two betting pots in these rules. What is the object of the Galaxy's Edge Sabacc game if there is no betting?
    • I mean, there is no one official ruleset. And yes, some stuff is unclear - blame the lack of sources, reliable or otherwise. Like, I can't even find out which year the Disneyland's Star Wars: Galaxy's Edge-themed area was released, exactly. The game is notable, but the nitty-gritty details about it are very hard to dig out. Like, when you ask "What is the object of the Galaxy's Edge Sabacc game if there is no betting?" - I don't know, the source doesn't say, although the object is likely to win :) How, the source doesn't say, we could try to find the rulebook - although if it's not online, it's not going to be easy - and then we could describe the rules but PRIMARY is the problem. Also there are some copyright concerns as to whether we can reproduce the rules on Wikipedia in detail, plus WP:NOTAGUIDE/how-to/manual. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's quite a bit of work to do here. I'll come back later to assess sourcing quality a bit more. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • About some new additions/other things I found:
    Sabacc was also used as part of the movie promotional campaign before its official launch a bit mangled, c/e this sentence. (I did some light copyediting here and there, you may want to look through the article again)
    A reviewer for the Games International drop "the" or add "magazine" or something
    players can fold - but have no reason to do so choose something other than the hyphen per MOS:DASH. Comma, spaced endash, unspaced emdash, whatever.
    Double check for typos, I found several.
    BoardGameGeek isn't a reliable source, and you don't need it?
  • I think I'm mostly through reading this, happy to look at further edits. Will put on hold (mostly for accounting reasons). —Kusma (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma All done I think, except the fair use image. I am having trouble choosing the best one and I am still uneasy about fair use in general. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: See comments above for image. I think a little more in the lead about the importance (just add the Han/Lando game) could help. Then we're probably done. While this just about passes "broadness", we're quite a bit away from "comprehensiveness" so please don't FA nominate this before finding more on the reception and covering how the game passed out of canon and back in. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kusma I've expanded the lead. I'd rather not add the fair use image as the more I think about it the more I am concerned such a use could be disputed :( Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: OK, fair enough. I think fair use on enwiki is a bit more relaxed now than it was 15 years ago, but perhaps that's just me. I'll do the paperwork and promote this now. —Kusma (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Brimmicombe-Wood, Lee (May 1990). "Rolegames". Games International (14): 40.