Talk:Animal Crossing: New Leaf/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CR4ZE (talk · contribs) 15:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Reviewed version as of 23:06, 22 November 2022

Well, sorry to leave you two-for-two. You did quote the main WP:GAN page in the prior review, but curiously, you omitted WP:GAN/I#N1, which explicitly states "Anyone may nominate an article to be reviewed for GA, although it is preferable that nominators have contributed significantly to the article and are familiar with its subject and its cited sources. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article must consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination." (My effect). You have no edits to the page and did not consult anyone about either of these nominations. Taking the article as is, there are large chunks of unsourced content through Gameplay (including several {{cn}} tags) and an incomplete summary of the critical reviews. Given this, the nomination receives a fail. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Result

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Please revise procedures in the future. If you want specific feedback on how to improve the page and have not made contributions or consulted with editors, use the peer review process. — CR4ZE (T • C) 15:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

   We gotta love when you spend 2 hours editing the article and going through everything, adding a new section, going through sources, and then wikipedia crashes lmao Thanks for the feedback, might do something by next week now, we'll see Zekerocks11 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)