Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pot Farm/1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues appear to have been resolved. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Uncited statements in the "Gameplay" section, including entire paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

...certain elements of gameplay surely come under MOS:PLOT Kingsif (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I was the GA reviewer. Isn't gameplay treated similarly to a plot synopsis which does not require citations? Both describe the work itself without specialized knowledge. I am aware of MOS:VGGP which states gameplay details must be appropriately verifiable to reliable sources. There are inline citations for details about different versions and comparisons to other games. However, the basic 'plot' and gameplay would be obvious to anyone playing the game. Per WP:PRIMARY A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. So the basic mechanics could be cited to the game itself. But is that really required? – Reidgreg (talk) 15:57, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

• @Kingsif and Reidgreg: My understanding of the consensus from MOS:VGGP is that all gameplay elements, including basic gameplay elements, fall under MOS:VGGP and require citations, and there is no exception for "basic gameplay" elements. VGGP says "While secondary sources like reviews are preferred, primary sources like game manuals and game guides are acceptable". My interpretation is that, if secondary sources cannot be found to cite the gameplay elements, game manuals or guides can be used instead. There is no mention of actually citing the game. Z1720 (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
  • It depends on ones read of "details" in MOS:VGGP, and where one draws the line between a broad-strokes description (my basic) and a detailed breakdown. There's no mention that you can't cite the game, and WP:PRIMARY seems to make a good case for allowing such. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Video games (not a guideline) states: Games are primary sources in articles about themselves. Whether it is good to use them as a source varies by perspective, subject and game. It also notes the template {{cite video game}} to be used for this purpose. Would adding citations to the video game satisfy your concerns here? So long as the statements being cited are straightforward and descriptive, I don't see the problem. – Reidgreg (talk)

• Uninvolved comment from the Wikiproject - yes, these concerns are warranted. All gameplay needs to be reliably sourced. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Delist Besides the uncited elements, the standalone notability of the game itself is unclear. Some sources seem unreliable/trivial. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I've cited all the gameplay section. Can someone copyedit please? //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 18:43, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

@Lollipoplollipoplollipop I've submitted a request for a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:29, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Z1720: What is your take on this article now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:43, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. Citation concerns are resolved. If Zxcvbnm is concerned about notability, they can post the article at WP:AfD (GAR is a bad place to resolve that question). Z1720 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2026 (UTC)
• Keep per above. GA isn't concerned with notability, so I agree that should not be a barrier. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:34, 12 May 2026 (UTC)