Talk:Undertale/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zppix (talk · contribs) 18:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
GA Checklist
[edit]- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
Please add more sources to lead within 24 hours.
- Pass/Fail:
- Per WP:CITELEAD, wouldn't it rather makes sense to discuss content from the lead that is not in the body INSIDE the body with sources? Lordtobi (✉) 18:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Leads do not need sources unless the information is only in the lead. Can we get a different reviewer or something? GamerPro64 19:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Zppix is a new reviewer who has spent under ten minutes per review and clearly does not understand the GA criteria or how to apply it. I have been trying to urge restraint, and just suggested a moratorium on further reviews. If Zppix is willing to withdraw, we can put this back into the reviewing pool so another reviewer would be able to select it. As I noted on Zppix's talk page, I have never heard of a 24-hour deadline, and of course the request for lead sourcing is in direct opposition to the Wikipedia Manual of Style and that GA criterion for following WP:LEAD. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Leads do not need sources unless the information is only in the lead. Can we get a different reviewer or something? GamerPro64 19:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Ok I'm still learning so give me time, I redacted the above comment and passed it. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Zppix, BlueMoonset, GamerPro64, and Lordtobi: Zppix, it's fine that you're still learning, but I dunno about just passing it like that. I'd be more comfortable with having another reviewer having a look at this (and possibly at the articles Zppix previously reviewed - Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner is a nice article, but it was passed really quickly with barely any comments).--IDVtalk 14:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- I am going to bring this matter to WT:GAN, and will be boldly reversing the passage: Zppix has been reviewing for two days, and I've already had to bring one article to GAR for reassessment. Unfortunately, we don't have time and Zppix has not yet learned from any of the posts I made to his or her talk page even before this review was opened. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Zppix, BlueMoonset, GamerPro64, and Lordtobi: Zppix, it's fine that you're still learning, but I dunno about just passing it like that. I'd be more comfortable with having another reviewer having a look at this (and possibly at the articles Zppix previously reviewed - Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Summoner is a nice article, but it was passed really quickly with barely any comments).--IDVtalk 14:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Per WP:CITELEAD, wouldn't it rather makes sense to discuss content from the lead that is not in the body INSIDE the body with sources? Lordtobi (✉) 18:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)