Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Giant Bomb/1
Giant Bomb
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result pending
Have to say that it might be difficult to figure out a precedent for video game websites. Polygon and Ars Technica are other notable websites that has decent quality. But I don't feel like Giant Bomb's article is all that well. I feel like there is too much use of primary sources on it, linking back to GB articles. Other sources are very questionable (Cinema Blend, anjelsyndicate.org, oxJane). There is a lot of details in the article that might be seen as unnecessary. What's the purpose of the last paragraph in the "Industry Impact" section, for example? Is there really a need for the "Criticism and Controversies" sections? Or the "Employees" section? I might be wrong about my criticisms but this article does come off as bloated. GamerPro64 04:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- As the person who wrote 95% of Giant Bomb's content I'm just posting here to acknowledge the reassessment and rule myself out of the discussion. I've had no time to spare to wiki writing these past 10 months so while I'm sure more 3rd party sources are out there to replace the primary sources I won't have time to look for them until February/March at the earliest. If Giant Bomb loses its GA status in the meantime so be it, thanks. --FLStyle (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)