User talk:TechnoCat92

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: Void Crew (October 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Vrxces was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Unfortunately this is not really meeting the notability standard for games. It ideally needs multiple sources of in depth coverage from three reliable sources - Xbox Era and Sprites and Dice arent really the calibre of sources we are looking for - check out WP:VG/S. Have you checked out whether Metacritic, Mobygames or WP:VG/SE have sources to flesh out a reception section?
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, TechnoCat92! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Void Crew (October 11)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tarlby was:
Objections not adequately addressed. Sources recommended for use can be seen at WP:VG/S.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Tarlby (t) (c) 14:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! :-)
I am wondering why the article was rejected. I have used Metacritic as a source of secondary reviews for the game, and the resources include notable reviews from among others PC Gamer. Can you put a few more words on why it was rejected? TechnoCat92 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic is a review aggregator and does not provide its own commentary. It's a directory where you can get sources, but itself does not provide notability. Tarlby (t) (c) 18:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that :-) But do you not find PC Gamer and Gaming Nexus notable enough? I also know that Rock Paper Shotgun wrote about them in Early Access, but I'm unsure of how many online magazines are needed to fulfill the "notability" requirement.
Can I add an Early Access category and maybe a section about the developer, or would that not be enough either? I've looked at other games, which seems to have the same amount of references, so I'm just trying to figure out how to navigate the requirements. TechnoCat92 (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, to interject here, usually if the reception section self-evidently identifies WP:THREE in-depth reviews from WP:VG/S type sources, most reviewers will not think twice to pass it. That isnt a formal rule, but WP:VG seems to have higher standards than others, for better or worse.
Why the accept hasn't happened here is that the sources aren't cited - you can't just cite the sources indirectly via Metacritic - they need to be referenced properly. Also, there are several duplicate references that are probably tuning people onto something being a bit off - remember you can use the < ref name = > function to reference the same citation in multiple places.
Also, as a matter of feedback, its irrelevant to notability but good practice to think about what elements of a review to highlight. Sometimes focusing on broader feedback about the game can be more useful and representative of the source as a whole. Check out WP:VG/MOS for more style suggestions like that. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:58, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm new to Wiki, or maybe I'm just blind, but I cannot find where the WP:VG defines their requirements for reviews. Is there a specific section?
In terms of the not cited sources, I'm not sure I follow. What part of the article is not cited? Is it the actual citations in the reception section?
Thank you for the feedback in terms of reviews - I will add a more broad perspective to add to the two more specific highlights. TechnoCat92 (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is a broad guideline covering reliable sources on all of Wikipedia while WP:VG/S does the same for sources for video games. The first paragraph of the Gameplay section is not cited. WP:V covers what should be cited on Wikipedia. Tarlby (t) (c) 21:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Necesse moved to draftspace

[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Necesse. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Wikishovel (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]