Jump to content

Talk:Sheng Long/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Reassessment

[edit]

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


Starts GA Reassessment. The reassessment will follow the same sections of the Article. Thank you --Whiteguru (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

Instructions: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment

Observations

[edit]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
   HTML document size: 116 kB
   Prose size (including all HTML code): 19 kB
   References (including all HTML code): 40 kB
   Wiki text: 24 kB
   Prose size (text only): 12 kB (2141 words) "readable prose size"
   References (text only): 6649 B
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  • Article follows manual of style.
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  1. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  • The Origin section and the Original EGM April Fools 1992 section don't have enough citations to carry the text. There is too much back-story and explanation.
  • EGM April Fools 1997 section is the same; it does not have enough citations to carry the text. There is too much back-story and explanation.
  • These matters were raised in a Video Game Assessment in 2008 and have not since been addressed.
  1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  • The significance and extent of the April Fool's hoax has been somewhat stretched out in this article.
  1. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  • Page created 6 June 2005;
  • Page has 785 edits by 255 editors and has 36 page watchers;
  • The Internet Archive Bot has visited 4 times;
  • 90 day page view statistics give 7,329 visits with a daily average of 81 views.
  • Article listed as GA: January 16, 2009
  • Examination of page history shows stability, and no edit warring. Edits address Japanese language and translations.
  1. 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):
  • File:SF Sheng long.jpg = fair use is claimed under US Copyright law. (fair use rationale is appended)
  • File:ShengLongEGMScan.jpg = fair use is claimed under US Copyright law. (fair use rationale is appended)
  • File:Sf4-gouken.jpg = screenshot from a video game = fair use is claimed under US Copyright law
  • Images are appropriately tagged and have fair use rationales.
  1. Notifying Editors:
  • Page Creator Suruena notified;
  • Editor Kung Fu Man notified;
  • Editor Jonny2x4 notified;
  • Editor Beemer69 notified;
  • Editor Zeke, the Mad Horrorist notified;
  • A total of five involved editors were able to be notified.
  1. Overall:
  • It is challenging to say this article is neutral considering it portrays an April Fool's joke played out three times in the Street Fighter video gaming environment.
  • The origin of the April Fools joke predates the Internet and social media; the in-joke was perpetrated twice in magazine interviews and print media and flopped a third time.
  • The hoax's general reception from the public and other publishers was to eventually meet ridicule from video game competitors.
  • There is too much back-story and explanation in sections of this article (without sufficient citations) to merit GA status.

 

 On hold for one week. --Whiteguru (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

(responses moved below onhold tag)

  • I'm sorry but this feels unnecessarily biased against the article. You're arguing against a neutral tone and saying there isn't sufficient citation when there is, arguing it isn't neutral on the grounds its an April Fool's joke? The whole point of the article is the joke and its legacy. I'm all for improving an article but I'm going to strongly contest this is how a GAR should be run. Why would the other games not mentioning this one even be part of the process?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to cautiously agree with KFM after reading the article. As Whiteguru notes in the criteria template, the it meets the GA criteria; it seems to me a bit of a bad use of time to try and revoke its status without proper grounding in the actual criteria. IMO, this article is fine, and I'm happy to contest the need for this GAR. If you want to improve the article, by all means do so, but there isn't good basis for reassessment. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 13:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(citing two page history explanations) 

 why is this at GAR? (ImaginesTigers)
 I'm at a loss at what exactly needs to be fixed her in your opinion to maintain GA. (KungFuMan)
@Whiteguru: You have initiated the reassessment so it’s you who has to indicate what part of the GA criteria this article fails—you can't transfer the onus to someone else. Given that you've indicated above that the article passes the criteria, I'm not sure what you're requesting be done. I don't agree that the article isn't neutral, nor do I agree "there is too much backstory". It’s contextualising the subject which, it must be said, is a hoax—that means necessitates context in order to not confuse readers. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 21:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 

 Passed

 


Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sheng_Long/GA2&oldid=1033996143"