Talk:Digimon Racing/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Against Criteria
[edit]1. PASS
- A) Pass
- B) Pass
2. (FAILED 2B) PASS!
- A) Pass
- B) FAIL. Please source the introduction. Sources are on the bottom, but the information in the intro is not sourced.
- Stuff in the intro should not be sourced unless it contains specific quotes that have to be attributed. Tezero (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; (emphasis added) This fails the bolded part Hamtechperson 03:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- What statistics, or really anything in the intro, are likely to be challenged? Tezero (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- When I changed the info there, you reverted based on a source. The portion attributed to the source was contradictory.
Also, see WP:OWN. You look to me like you are OWNing the article.Hamtechperson 13:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)- How is it contradictory? Your comment about ownership concerns me. Perhaps it seems that I am overly defensive of a small group of sources, but it's because the article has a fairly limited subject matter; therefore, there aren't too many reliable sources out there for me to use. I'll add the source to the intro if you want. Tezero (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'd appreciate that. The operative word in my last comment was WAS. Sorry about the (now stricken) OWNership comment. Hamtechperson 17:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- How is it contradictory? Your comment about ownership concerns me. Perhaps it seems that I am overly defensive of a small group of sources, but it's because the article has a fairly limited subject matter; therefore, there aren't too many reliable sources out there for me to use. I'll add the source to the intro if you want. Tezero (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
- When I changed the info there, you reverted based on a source. The portion attributed to the source was contradictory.
- What statistics, or really anything in the intro, are likely to be challenged? Tezero (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; (emphasis added) This fails the bolded part Hamtechperson 03:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Stuff in the intro should not be sourced unless it contains specific quotes that have to be attributed. Tezero (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Passed by decision of reviewer at 01:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
- C) Pass
3. PASS
- A) Pass
- B) Pass
4. Pass
5. Pass
6. PASS
- A) Pass
- B) Pass
Reviewer: Hamtechperson 02:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments by Other Users
[edit]It would be helpful to restate the questions here rather than an outline with just PASS/FAIL; that way I don't have to keep flipping between the criteria and the assessment. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- So was this passed and just not listed as such, or are we still waiting for the sourcing? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)
- I did the sourcing thing. I thought it was listed as passed. Maybe he forgot to remove it. I'll check GAN. Tezero (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- Nevermind, everything looks fine. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
- I did the sourcing thing. I thought it was listed as passed. Maybe he forgot to remove it. I'll check GAN. Tezero (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)