Talk:Justin Yu/GA1

GA Review

Passed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Johnson524 (talk · contribs) 18:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 13:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also reviewing this one. School might get in the way, so don't expect me to respond immediately. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 13:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEclipse: Thank you so much for taking up another Tetris article review! Take all the time you need, and cheers! Johnson524 01:35, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnson524: Apologies for leaving you in the dust. I'll probably start reviewing by this weekend. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 14:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LunaEclipse: Hello, I hope you're doing well! Just wanted to check if you still wanted to do this review since its been a month. If you are, no rush! Just in case you weren't, I wanted to ask so another editor could take over. Cheers! Johnson524 03:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson524, yeah, I'd rather have someone else do it at this point. — 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ ^{【=◈︿◈=】} 10:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Answering the request for a different reviewer.

Image review

File:Justin Yu CTWC 2023.jpg Looks correctly licensed, though I have to say I'm not used to GDrives being used to share images.
File:2023 CTWC finals.jpg - On wider displays this crashes into the infobox. May want to move it down a little. Also, fixed image sized are not recommended per MOS:IMGSIZE.
- Done

Prose review

which helped him to become the first person to reach Tetris's late-game glitched color levels, as well unintentionally help him in his major at MIT. - "help" ... "help". Perhaps rephrase to be less clunky?
- Done
What's the point in introducing the CTWC acronym if you don't use it? I see several instances where Classic Tetris World Championship is spelled out after the acronym is introduced.
- Done
or when the maximum amount of four rows are cleared at once in-game - You already defined "tetris" above.
- Not done I'm sorry, I'm not exactly sure what your concern/what you want me to do here is? Johnson524 05:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have "perfect Tetris game" consisting of only the highest scoring line-clears called tetrises" and "trying to focus on completing tetrises, or when the maximum amount of four rows are cleared at once in-game" two paragraphs alter. Given the brevity of the article, such repetition stands out. I'd nix one, if possible. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done Ohhhh I get it now Johnson524 17:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, reference style should be consistent. I see a mixture of sentence case and title case for the articles cited.
- The majority of the article is sentence case, the only part I can see that's title case is the competitive record results, and that's because that's exactly how the title is formatted in the source. I've actually never heard this concern before, so I apologize for asking, but can this stay as is? Cheers! Johnson524 05:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - GA Criterion 2a, "it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;" In this case, the relevent sentence is "Editors may use any citation method they choose, but it should be consistent within an article." It tends to slide at GA, but it does get caught at FA reviews ("The translated title for Chen 2009 isn't capitalized the same as the others", ""Quick Spin" should be "Quick spin" for consistent capitalisation", Check the capitalisation on article titles, which goes awry in places. Most are in sentence case, but for some (FNs 3, 6 and 127) caps have sneaked in there). In this case, I don't think it's a deal breaker, but it is something that would help improve the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done For the most part, the only titles I didn't change were the competitive record ones along the line of "CTM May 2022 Masters Event" and so on, as these seemed like more formal titles than anything. Johnson524 17:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a GA criterion, but I would recommend archiving your online references to future-proof the article. I see you've done some, but those news articles that form the bulk of the content are not covered
- Internet Archive bot currently isn't working, but I'll try to get this done as soon as it's fixed. Johnson524 05:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Classic Tetris Monthly a publisher or a work? The title makes it sound like a periodical, which would be a work.
- Done
References appear to support the cited material.
Earwig gives 13%, but these are mostly competition names.

Conclusion

This article is very tightly written, and seems quite solid for its subject. Just a few nitpicks. Also, be advised that I made some edits while reading through. Please review. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Johnson524, because I don't think Christie Bot gave a notification that a new review was underway. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crisco 1492: Thank you very much for taking up this review! I will get to the changes suggested shortly. Cheers! Johnson524 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Crisco 1492: OK, all the corrections I could do are complete now! I think I had a question or two on some, but all in all the article should be set. Thank you so much again for taking up this review, cheers! Johnson524 05:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Johnson524, I've responded above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Crisco 1492: Should be all set now, cheers! Johnson524 17:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      - Congratulations. I am happy to say that this article meets the good article criteria! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.