Talk:Speedrunning/GA1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Result: delisted GamerPro64 (talk) 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How this article got Good Article I'll never know. There's many problems about this article, like:

  • There's lots of Citation needed on the article.
  • There's a dubious – discuss on the Metroid 2002 (Metroid series) section, whatever that is.
  • On thay note, why is there stuff talking about people with speedrun records? That's unnessesary!
  • And there's web adresses being crudly shown on the article.

There is so much problems with this article, it needs a Start-class rating. Please give out your thoughts. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist for the following reasons:
    • Lead is not in very good shape. Needs some significant cleanup.
    • In addition to a significant amount of {{fact}} tags already present, there are also other portions of the content that are completely unsourced. Other portions are clearly original research Would not pass criterion 2.
    • Many unreliable sources present in the article.
    • Images are not of low-resolution or low filesize and/or have poor fair-use rationales—in particular. Media do not have proper fair-use rationales, as well.
    • I don't think all three videos are necessary in understanding the article. Maybe one is fine, but definitely not three, and definitely not in a gallery style (which goes against the MOS).

The biggest thing, however, is the sourcing. MuZemike 01:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist pretty much per MuZemike (talk · contribs). This was made a GA when things were less stringently checked. I'll add that there isn't exactly a shortage of reliable sources available on this topic. I just added some possible ones to a "Further reading" section. —TKD [talk][c] 00:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Kinda all that's been said has been said.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]