Talk:Video game walkthrough/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 12:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this article for GAN. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Article version reviewed: here.

Review

Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Lead

• Awkward opening sentence - feels like it is describing the history before even explaining what the article is about

 Done Good catch, I reworked the sentence/lead yesterday (and more so today) but forgot to mark this particular point off. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• The words - "video game walkthroughs" appears 3 separate times in the lead - perhaps one of those can be removed or paraphrased so it doesn't seem so repetitive?

 Done - replaced in the lead with "Walkthroughs" after the first mention. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Remove refs in lead as content should be in main prose anyway, and referenced there

 Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• The lead seems rather short. Admittedly the article isn't that big anyway, but I suspect it could be expanded a little to cover more of the general article scope (see WP:LEAD)

@Bungle: I have reworked the flow of the lead, moving the citations elsewhere within the article (to appropriate locations of course) within the article. Barring the last point about expanding the lead (I have yet to do that) what do you think of it now? Any better? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I still think it needs something further. The opening sentence now opens about walkthroughs, which would be fine as it's the article title, but the article itself gives due attention to playthroughs as well - this isn't mentioned in the lead, despite it being quite a focal point in much of the motivations section. People are making alot of money from this doing this too.. I think that should be mentioned in the lead, but obviously briefly as the detail will be in the prose. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What do you think of the lead now that it has been modified to include mention of playthroughs and the fact that some people make a lot of money from doing this? Also, elsewhere, would that reference about Bradley Colburn be a good idea to add (as an example)? The only issue is that he does not have his own Wikipedia page. this is the reference.--TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that link is fine to offer an additional example. The person in question doesn't need to be notable enough to warrant their own wiki page, but it does re-enforce the statement about people making money (even those, in this case, that may not even be that well known). I may make some minor edits to the lead but otherwise, so long as the main "talking points" about the article are covered, it should be fine. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Added. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

History

• "Historically, video game walkthroughs.." - when exactly? Historically is vague.

Reworked the sentence to remove "historically". --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing the term changes the sentence from being vague to ambiguous. I was really hoping we could get some idea when these walkthroughs were actually first available. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I do not want to 'assume' anything, but could that not be considered to have occurred around the time that video game magazines were published? If so, it would be the 1980s. (see List of video game magazines). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You're suggesting it's reasonable for the reader to make their own assumptions without being able to offer them any clarity as to whether those assumptions are likely to be factual? When stating time periods and dates, it really needs to be backed up with *something*. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• "In the mid to late 1990s.." - is there an exact "from" date that can be mentioned, specifically when this started?

I have been asked this question before and, truth be told, it was before my time. I do not know of any specific dates nor have I found any online. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Which portion of part of the referenced site offers the mid-late 90s timescale? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I should actually revise that as new information has come to light that it was the late 1980s and early 1990s. I am not sure about the reputability of this reference, but it is definitely a start. This is on YouTube, so it is not exactly the best reference, but it does take to supposedly the last nintendo game councilor and also mentions how the rise of the internet killed off the telephone service. [1] is another. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

So that first (and perhaps second) ref suggests the phone service came "around" 1988, with the third giving a date of 2010 for the cut-off. The fact you have dates there may make it easier to find something official, but even if you can't, i'd be happy to let you run with those refs to support the operating timeframe. Sometimes you can't always find super reliable sources, especially for something started 3 decades ago, but it sounds plausible. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle:  Done I have corrected the information. That one that listed 1988 appears to have been correct as I found this from the New York Times. As for the 2010 reference, sadly I did not find any from the NY Times are another publication so I used the second reference from above as you said that, while not preferable, if no others could be found, you would consider it acceptable. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• "also available through telephone 'hot-lines'.." - the ref used suggests this was limited to the USA, but there is no mention whether this was just limited to that region, or worldwide. Sentence is a bit ambiguous.

 Done I have not found any references indicating that such lines were available outside of the United States (of course, anyone can call any number from anywhere, would just be long distance ), so I have put that it was within the United States. If more (reputable) info is found, it can easily be updated. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• "often advertised in video game magazines" - such as?

Removed this as I do not have any references to this and think it was added by another editor at some point. I imagine that it probably was but do not have a citation nor example. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Just be a little cautious about speedily removing content unless you are sure you have researched thoroughly (as it's easier to find a source for something specific, rather than trying to find something random). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• "These 'hotlines' were known for charging a minutely fee.." - I don't see that mentioned in the preceding reference? Where is this info from?
• When did the hotlines cease to operate? I suspect the widespread adoption of the internet may have killed them off, but it'd be interesting to know what happened to them, as well as clarifying their regional availability

 Done I have not found any information in regards to when the ceased to operate but did edit the article to state the probable cause to be internet websites. I am not familiar with the "minutely fee" bit as it was added by another editor at some point and I could not find anything online relating to this, so I have removed it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Changing the prose to "which were most likely replaced by internet websites" comes across entirely as WP:OR at its best. You can't make an assumption and quote it as a matter of fact. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point, what would you suggest? Would a reference like the one used further down ([2]) be of any help? I know that it discusses print based magazines, but it does address the rise in popularity of digital formats (which resulted in the decline of physical magazine sales). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I do agree with you that the decline is likely to do with wider internet access, it's just not reasonable to make this suggestion based on one's own interpretation of statistics. If official sources made that connection and attributed the decline to the internet, you could at least make a direct quotation, but that isn't the case in that ref. You may even be able to broaden out a bit, and find examples of other, non-related magazines that have seen a decline against the competition of online availability, which at least could support the assumption here, but that isn't ideal. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done I removed that bit of the sentence in favour of a citation in the one following (point below). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Despite the rise in popularity of internet based guides.." - ref? Rise since when, in what type of games? Who says?

 Done I have added a reference detailing the decline of print gaming magazines in favour of the web (hence confirming the web rise in popularity). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• "text-based walkthroughs are still prevalent today in both print and digital formats" - unreferenced

Reference added. I think that the sentence is somewhat contradictory though "Despite the rise in popularity of internet based guides, text-based walkthroughs are still present today in both print and digital formats."

"Internet based" is digital.

What do you think of "Despite the rise in popularity of internet based guides, text-based walkthroughs are still present today in print format."? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If the statistics show they're still popular in print format, can you not say that, substituting "present" for "popular" if it can be supported? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• "(often in the form of wikis) - this may be better suited going after relevant examples that follow, else it technically isn't sourced

 Done, you are right, it is better suited after the examples. Thanks for pointing that out. It has been moved. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to mention all the examples that are noted, particularly those that don't even have a corresponding article. Just stick to the more well known ones, and as above, the wiki ones to source that aspect of the sentence

@Bungle: I somehow missed this point earlier, sorry about that. So, just to clarify, you are recommending removing "GamingBolt", "Supercheat", and the other non-wikilinked ones? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think removing non-linked, non-notable ones would be a good idea, as the reader gets the jist from the few known ones mentioned. The others are just redundant and add no value (unless they were unique and thus supported other information specifically, but I can't see that being the case here). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Removed. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• "With the advent of screen recording.. - since when? This seems to suggest quite a momumental shift in how players interact and engage with walkthroughs, but when did this change happen? Did screen recording, live streaming and fast internet all occur at the same time, or staggered/each one following another?

Would Streaming media or Screencast#Origin of the term be of any assistance? Sadly, most of it is unsourced but it does discuss this. I would say that the increase in internet speeds would have definitely come before the rise in popularity of live streaming (otherwise, no one/very few could watch it). As for the exact order, I am not sure. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed "you would say", but is your word to be taken as gospel? :) I don't think referring to another wiki article, itself unsourced and written by others is wise. Could you find any news articles discussing screen recording, whether that be the tech or software, to at least offer some timescales of initial availability? Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done I removed the sentence as, without the GamesRadar reference, the sentence did not make much sense. As a result of removing the sentence, it also resolves this point (hence why I am marking it as 'done')}} --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• "(commonly referred to as video walkthroughs or playthroughs)" - the ref at the sentence end has lots of mentions of playthroughs, but not the former. Despite it noting playthroughs alot, why does this make it a common phrase, rather than just a term one site/writer has used?

 Done Reworked the sentence to remove that. Thanks for the help! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Gameplay videos refer to video.." - Where is the source that reputably describes the term as gameplay videos?

 Done I have removed it and reworked that section to remove use of the term. It is a popular term on YouTube and searchable but could not find any quality references discussing it off hand. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• "These videos and live streams generally have the goal.." - this part of the sentence seems to be cited with a footnote which itself makes unreferenced claims. "Generally" also seems an awkward word to use (see WP:WORDS).

@Bungle: I have reworked the sentence as a consequence of the above suggested edit, but have yet to remove the "generally" claim. As per the above, a Google search will uncover countless guides relating to this, but sadly I have yet to find any reputable sources discussing it. Should I just remove it or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The sentence is just too long as it is though. It needs reworking - the first part of this sentence is quite a mouthful when you read it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle:I have reworked the last paragraph in that section, is it any better? As for the "generally" bit, do you have any suggestions to improve it and make it less awkward? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess you can leave as is; other words such as "typically" or "often" don't really change the context either. I think it's plausible enough. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Based on what you stated, I will mark this as done. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• There is a single source from a wired.com blog (not necessarily reliable) that covers the two preceding sentences. May I suggest finding something more reputable?

 Done The CNN reference ([3]) covered this as well so I have added it there as well. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• In the aforementioned wired.com blog, there is a claim that: "watching other people play videogames is a multi-million-dollar industry called Let's Plays - this statement (multi-million-dollar industry) sounds like something which, if true, could be mentioned in the article, but sourced appropriately and reliably

It is true, a lot of people have made a lot of money playing video games (look at PewDiePie, Daniel Middleton, Bradley Colburn (TheRadBrad, [4]). Would this reference from the BBC regarding Daniel Middleton be appropriate? I found it on the Wikipedia page about them. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That BBC article seems fine to be. BBC is reputable enough and it does indeed offer an example of someone doing what is described and making lucrative money from it. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle:  Done I have added mention of it to both the lead and "As a business" section (which I created specifically to mention the possibility of lucrative money, I am open to suggestions of a better section title). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Format

• "Some of the ways that gameplay may be recorded.." - is there anywhere that gives a working example of either of these methods, even if it's a youtube video demonstrating a setup? A reputable site explaining and demonstrating the procedure would be preferable though.

YouTube videos demonstrating recording setups are plentiful and seems to have been the "thing" to do a couple of years ago among the popular YouTube channels. As for a more reputable site discussing this, this reference appears to have some information relating to it and mentions how some use computers, cellphones, game consoles, etc.

Niemeyer, D. J., & Gerber, H. R. (2015). Maker culture and Minecraft : implications for the future of learning. Educational Media International, 52(3), 216-226. doi:10.1080/09523987.2015.1075103

--TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Some video games also include built-in recording features." - which games? Only recent ones? Crossplatform capable? How do they record? Needs to be expanded, examples given and of course, referenced.
• "..Grand Theft Auto V (2013), feature in-game recording features.." - is there a website detailing this, even if it's advising on the functionality, or a video demonstrating it (or both, ideally the former). Needs reference at sentence end.

YouTube videos detailing the functionality are plentiful. Would this reference from Rockstar Games (the developer of Grand Theft AUto V) be sufficient Bungle? It has both a video detailing the editor and a text description. The official editor guide can be found here. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't go wrong with official developer videos! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Both references I linked above I have added. -TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• "These various means of recording gameplay allow players to capture their play for their own record and to share with others" - do we need this sentence as it is? Can we not just add "to share with others" to the end of the previous sentence?

 Done Good catch! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• "..(CVG) published both text and video based walkthroughs...until their closure by Future in February of 2015." - the ref is about prior to closure - I don't see mention of the actual closure date being Feb 2015 on the BBC article. Also would be useful to expand briefly why "Future" closed it (i.e. is it related to the easy accessibility of watching others play, thus making it redundant or overly competitive)?

I have added a reference to the article which states the month, the exact day I admit I got from the CVG Wikipedia page. It was probably listed on their website, but the site is no longer live as it is a redirect to GamesRadar+. The exact reason for shutting down I think was streamlining but not overly sure. Check out [5]. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Whilst I am not a major fan of archive links, could you see about getting an old copy of the site from way back machine, which would give a firsthand date and perhaps credible understanding for the closure? I think in something like this, when a site has ceased to exist it's acceptable. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: How is this? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's fine. It was originally stated on the actual website (so first-hand) and an archive ref in this case is warranted. Good find. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle:  Done Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Motivations

• "In addition to the possible entertainment value.." - not sure about this whole sentence. Use of the words "possible" and "may" suggest uncertainty and not validated on a wide enough scale to be credible viewpoints. The 2nd half of the sentence is based on an individual's opinion, so this should be clear, rather than saying "players who watch" as if it's a generalisation (which it may not be).

 Done I removed the sentence. I have thought of this sentence over the course of the day, and I must say that the more I think of it now that you mention it, the less I like it. You are 100% right. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 08:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

• "the 'Netflix of video games'" - this is a repeat of the exact same statement from the end of the first paragraph within the History section

I felt it appropriate to include in both locations. With that said, I am happy to rework and move it around. Do you have any suggestions? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't like it being repeated almost word for word. This is only sometimes acceptable if you are saying something the lead then again, with further details in the main prose, but I don't know whether it's important enough to have lead mention (as it's a viewpoint rather than a factual statement). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

So you would recommend removing it from the History section? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Remove one of them.. I don't think it matters which. Either that, or expand on one sufficiently that it isn't a direct quote of the statement, but a discussion about it; it may just be easier to remove one though. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done I removed the one from the history section, which also addressed another point above. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• "A study on the different motivations" - this sentence is waaaayyyy too long! Perhaps rephrase to inform they found "significant motivations", including X,Y Z (the motivations themselves being condensed). You should be able to get this to two sentences, or at the very least split using a semi-colon. I think you can get more info from this paper too than what is written, to expand that part of it somewhat.

I have further reworked the sentences, what do you think of them now? I have (somewhat) condensed them, as you suggested doing. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I broke up the sentence and will look more into the paper, is there anything in particular you suggest? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Simply removing redundant words is sufficient (i.e. could change some to: "enhancing player knowledge, gaining confidence, socialising, real-life distractions" etc). You can replace several words with 1 or 2 in some cases. I can always do a minor copyedit later on. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have condensed it even further per your suggestion. As always, you are welcome to do any minor copy edits that you see fit ;-) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• The research paper used as a ref for the aforementioned sentence contains some very interesting statistics about the type of people watching others play games. You could take the most interesting/relevant of these and put the figures into a chart (either in excel, then screengrab or use wikipedia's built in chart/graph template)

Good catch, I think that table #3 would be the best to add, what do you think? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Table 3 is fine. You could even go one further and mention the statistics noted from table 2 in the prose, to offer an insight in the type of people (their age, education & income) and better understand as to whether different social or economic situations contribute towards a greater amount of time spent watching these. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, table 2 was better to add. I have added it to a new section called "Demographics" and split its information into 3 pie charts. What do you think Bungle? Also, is there any way to make the charts go side-by-side in a row? It did that for me in preview and after saving it, but upon reloading the page they are now all stacked. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I does seem a little messy. I don't think you need charts for the sake of having a chart, if the info can far easier be given on text-format (i.e. why not just say that over 92% are males, thus removing one redundant chart)? You can use wikitable markup without the styling to put them side-by-side too, but I think it'd look a bit awkward having 2 charts standalone.. far better to combine them into prose. I'd say remove the gender chart and change to prose, then additional change one of the other two and just keep one chart.

 Done Converted the majority to text, only kept the income chart. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's better to do these charts as SVGs or even Template:Pie chart in order to scale better. Also be really careful with stats: They only speak as loud as the sample size. How were they collected? Were the participants international? US- or UK-only? What is the unit for the income? Might it make more sense to combine some of the charts or display them differently? Is all of the information necessary for a generalist understanding of the topic? The gender chart, for instance, is much better displayed in prose than graphics unless there's some intent to shock the viewer in seeing a sea of blue.  czar 16:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar:  Done I have reduced the number of charts to just the income chart. The study was conducted in Finland by the University of Tampere with a sample size of 1097 selected at random (all of which I added to article per your suggestion). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Images

• Single image is non-free but otherwise marked appropriately. I would imagine it'd not be too difficult to create your own images, such as a screengrab recording yourself playing a game, with the appropriate attribution for said game? Are there any promo images of an actual text/magazine walkthrough, rather than just the front cover as imaged currently (which doesn't add much value)?

So screengrab a recording of gameplay footage I make myself? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Well that's one idea and it'd be your own work, so long as attribution is given to the game and it's meaningful (i.e. no point if it's just a screengrab of a part of a game with no other accompanied information). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: What sort of "accompanied information" would you suggest? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking that you'd need some way to identify it as a walkthrough video specifically, but maybe I am being pedantic. A screengrab of you just playing a game and nothing else adds no value though. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• There are plenty of free use game images on Commons, which are preferred over non-free files. There are also some walkthrough vids (e.g., File:Tales of Symphonia Chronicles - PS3 - Swimsuit quest (Walkthrough video).webm) though some are closer to generic playthroughs (no commentary about what to do next) than didactic walkthroughs.  czar 15:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Czar: I added File:Deadcore - Basics 2 of 3 - Jumps & Blasts (Walkthrough Video).webm --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

Overall, a rather interesting article, but I can't help but feel that there could be more to offer in terms of information. There are some good sources referenced here which have info that could benefit the article further, particularly details of statistics. I think at least another actual image, plus a graph would compliment the prose further. I feel that the article covers more than what I would typically consider a walkthrough, in that either walkthroughs have evolved beyond my previous understanding, or the article broadly covers variations (i.e. playthroughs), which may appeal to a different audience. I see there has been a discussion about this on the talk page only very recently but it doesn't seem to have been enacted upon. I think given the article covers both variants, it needs to be clear at the start.

I'm happy to hold this to see what improvements and additions can be made over the next few days. I have given quite a comprehensive review for such a small article, though if you disagree or need clarity, please reply to the specific point. There may be further points to make once changes have been made. I'd advise, if possible, to remove blogs or opinions of individuals and replace with more general news articles, or backed up with credible statistics if retained so as to not seem like it is reporting opinion as wider consensus or belief.

I feel my review on the whole is more about getting clarity on points and statements made, however it may be that further info and expansion is viable in the process of undertaking the research necessary to satisfy those concerns. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I have replied to your points to hopefully assist you in making further improvements - i'd like you to try and be a bit more bold and just make the amendments when you discover sufficient info. I think other editors may look at the review and be amazed how long it has got already, given the relatively small article size, though I am also aware it is perhaps helping you become a better reviewer too. Also, no need to "ping" me multiple times.. once is sufficient :) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Passing comment: I'd expand the scope to include "playthroughs" (video walkthroughs as equal weight to the text walkthroughs) and to clearly distinguish against Let's plays and Longplay (video games). (I could see longplays possibly being subsumed into this article's scope as well, if its section is handled well. Stuff like the PewDiePie final section is irrelevant if it's just about YouTubers and not about the topic: walkthroughs & playthroughs.  czar 15:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Czar: Just to clarify, you are saying to expand the coverage of video walkthroughs, right? How would you recommend distinguishing, with a "not to be confused with" template like I have seen around on other articles or in text? If the latter, how would you recommend approaching it? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

As I have said on a previous statement, the article does give due attention to both walkthroughs and playthroughs, so must make the distinction between them, as well as being very clear in the opening lead that the article covers both types. If I could think of a word that describes both types equally, i'd have suggested an article name change, as it seems a little bias towards walkthrough than playthroughs (the latter although whilst similar, has a slightly different appeal). My only concern at present is whether the boundries between the two are becoming blurred... is it that a playthrough is simply a variant or type of walkthrough, or is it something distinctly different altogether?

I am also not a big fan of small sections and think the "business" content could easily fit into "motivations". It may well be it could discuss the motivations from those creating the videos and those watching them.. two very different types of individual with different motivations but on the same platform of interest. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I have merged the section Bungle, I am tempted to simply rename it to "Motivations" though, will sleep on it and see in the morning. I would consider playthrough to be a variant/type of walkthrough as they are extremely similar and a playthrough does essentially walk a player through how to play a game (hence a 'walkthrough' of sorts, albeit maybe not as informative, but it depends - sadly no reputable references discussing this though). Googling "playthrough vs. walkthrough" essentially confirms this.--TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I have renamed the section Bungle. How close now do you think it is to passing the criteria? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly considerably better referenced and alot less ambiguous than initially. I still think the lead could be better.. let me have a think about it and i'll see if I can make any changes to it (maybe even mentioning playthroughs a bit earlier). The motivations section I do not think should start with direct views of an individual, but maybe open with the study/research text. I also don't know why ref #11 has any bearing to the previous websites being wiki-based. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: I have done a bit of editing to the motivations section and will look further into reordering it. As for ref 11, it was referenced in ref 12 (Maker culture and Minecraft : implications for the future of learning) in a mention regarding "walkthroughs" commonly also being on blogs/wikis (page 222). The exact text was: "In these instructional videos, creators explained processes in their own commen- tary, while carrying out a variety of tasks on screen. This is akin to “walkthroughs”, which are often written on blogs or wikis (Gerber, 2013)."

Hopefully this helped to clear that reference up. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I have opened the section with the study as suggested Bungle. I am not sure about the sentence "Walkthroughs may guide players throughout an entire game or only certain sections and may be guides on finding rare collectables or unlocking achievements." though, I am debating about dropping it or moving it elsewhere as it does not really "fit" in the motivations section. What do you think? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I will take a closer look again tomorrow when I have some spare time and let you know. I don't think it is far off GA now, with the amendments that have been made. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I have made a few small copyedits as you may have noticed, mostly just rewording a few things or trying to make sections flow a little better. I look at the history section and it looks a little minimal compared to the others and I just wonder whether there is anything further that can be mentioned there? Usually the history has some in-depth information about how things used to be, what has changed over time and why that change has happened. Maybe the closure of CVG could be incorporated someway (as well as offering an explanation to the reader why it closed, as currently it just says they closed, but doesn't offer a reason why or indeed why it is/was significant at the time). As this is GA (and not FA), it doesn't need to be an extensive writeup, but I feel a little more clarity and detail would be beneficial; i'd be happy to give it GA if that can be done. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: I have added mention as to the reason of CVG's closure by their parent company, Future plc, asset consolidation and have added a new reference supporting the information in the Format section. As for the history section, I have added mention of CVG (although limited its detail in regards to closure as the Format section now covers that in more detail). As for expanding the section further, I am not sure what to add at this point. Also, in comparing section sizes, the size of the history and format sections is within 300 bytes of each other, it is just the image in the format section that makes it appear much larger (by compressing text horizontally, therefore causing its vertical growth). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

That's fine; I accept the history section appears smaller due to no image being present, but I was taking this into account and still hoped it could be broadened out somewhat. None the less, for GA the article does not have to go into expansive detail, but merely be broad enough that it covers most of the topic discussed, which I feel it now does and it suitable sourced.

I have made a few minor copyedits but otherwise I am happy to say this is a good article, based on the latest revision. Well done as I managed to make quite a lot of suggestions for a relatively small article! Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Bungle: Thank you so much! Before I take this to FA, do you have any recommendations for improvements aside from expanding the history section? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think expansion of every section would be a wise idea, particularly as some go into certain details only very marginally. The article has great scope for actually understanding and discussing walkthroughs from a by-gone era, though naturally it's harder to research and gather historic information (at least compared to more contemporary variants such as playthroughs). There is even the potential to consider whether interaction differs between contries/regions, as well as gender/ages which you have already touched on in the article. Whilst what is present is reasonably well sourced, I think for FA it'd need to be considerably more detailed, broad and digging further afield. The history section probably would be key though, and i'd envisage splitting it into "eras" to discuss more thoroughly a time during the 80/90s with text/magazines, then the late 90s/2000s when they went digital/internet era and into the modern day when playthroughs have become more commonplace and accessible. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)