04:1804:18, 18 July 2022diffhist−395
Sith
→Ideology: Arguably irrelevant to ideology. Move it somewhere else in article or scrap it because it’s completely unsourced. Anyone could make that up unless i’m mistaken please source if it’s specific historical claims.Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
16 July 2022
01:2001:20, 16 July 2022diffhist−230
The Stand
I don’t understand why that sentence is thrown in. The lead is a summation of information presented later in the article typically, yet information on what reviewers liked or disliked is not presented in the article. It reads like original research possibly. Also, the specifics of what reviewers liked about the book is more inflating of the lead than necessary when it’s recognition was already listed prior.Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
03:0403:04, 7 July 2022diffhist+24
Injustice 2
Whenever awards are mentioned in an article, I usually see that reflected in the lead. Perhaps my phrasing is too simplistic but it is very similar to other articles in which games have received awards or have been nominated
13:0213:02, 23 May 2022diffhist+43
Fable III
→Reception: Am I reading a different here? the praise and criticisms seem to be completely different from the ones originally listed here. I updated it for a more holistic view of the praise and criticism respectively
13:3513:35, 19 May 2022diffhist+6
Mass Effect 3
→Legacy: Separating these publications from the player based response to controversies. The wording here better highlights the multiple views different publications had since the criticism of the ending seemed to largely go over the heads of publications and other controversies weren’t necessarily criticisms of the game itself.
04:3604:36, 19 May 2022diffhist−646
Mass Effect 3 ending controversy
→Response: Reading the source for the BBB claims, it’s very misleading. It is only a blog from a director of a branch of the BBB, not the BBB as a whole. Using a single blog post deceptively in an article makes for a sub-par source. I suggest finding a source that doesn’t clickbait like this.
21:5521:55, 18 May 2022diffhist−338
Literary fiction
Citation does not support that it’s often used as a synonym. in fact, the definition doesn’t seem to exclude genre fiction. maybe a better source?Tags: RevertedMobile editMobile web edit
14:2314:23, 14 May 2022diffhist−454
Frankfurt School
→Philosophy of music: Roger Scruton is not necessarily a needed view to have on this page. The influence of adornos critique should be balanced, not dismissed by a frankly fringe view academically.Tags: Mobile editMobile web edit
18:0118:01, 3 March 2022diffhist−561
Homophobia
→Non-neutral phrasing: Primary sources of one man's likely fringe position is more clutter than useful content in the article. It's not really an unreliable source, but it isn't necessary among the other criticisms presented in this section. I'd like to continue the discussion in the talk page if my change receives contesting views so we can work together to improve.
00:2500:25, 11 November 2021diffhist−315
m
Game
I want to remove this until we can reach nuance between something like racing and gymnastics which is clearly supported as sports to be included in the Olympic games by international consensus versus Chris Crawford's (frankly restrictive) definition. I'd like to reach out on the talk page but it appears to gain no interaction.