Talk:Angry Video Game Nerd/GA1
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 11:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll start reviewing this. --Anarchyte 11:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Main review edit
Overall comments/Misc edit
Hmm, I don't know if this is because other websites copy Wikipedia or if Wikipedia copied this source. I'll get a second opinion on that.- Please reword these sections.
- This article relies a lot on Cinemassacre, which is a primary source.
Lead edit
- A starting independent filmmaker, Rolfe's earliest videos of the Nerd character was intended as a joke privately shown to his friends.
- What do you mean by this?
- [...] the Nerd was highly influential in bringing online video reviews to the mainstream public.
- Seems a little promotional, IMO.
Premise edit
- Reference #2 (first sentence) is a deadlink with no available archive.
- This section is reliant off 1 deadlink and 1 working reference, the last paragraph isn't referenced at all.
- [...] him destroying whole game cartridges, or defecating, burning and sometimes even crushing entire video game consoles.
- I can't find where this is mentioned in the article. Using CNTL+F for all of the words "burning", etc also finds no results.
Production edit
- Rolfe diversified the reviews of platforms and products such as the Atari 2600, Super NES, Sega Master System and Sega Genesis video game consoles, the Power Glove and U-Force peripherals, films such as The Wizard, and the Nintendo Power magazine.
- I can't find the reference for this, I've added a cn tag.
- expressive lighting and camera angles to emphasize its horror film-themed narrative in which the Nerd is attacked by Jason Voorhees for disliking the game. Later episodes have alternated from straightforward game reviews to those with a narrative focus resembling a documentary, with Rolfe pointing out information about the game or gaming console under review.
- This seems to be copy/pasted from the source.
- Ref 10 is a YouTube video and isn't reliable, if I remember correctly.
- I'll get a second opinion on that as well.
Other media edit
- This section is pretty good, although if the references could be updated, it'd be better.
- Reference 24 is a YouTube Let's Play video and is thus not reliable.
- A few other references are to other media sharing sites.
Reception and legacy edit
- The section is good.
Overall review edit
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. Has an appropriate reference section:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail: (Fail)
- Pass or Fail:
The article stays focused but the references aren't very good. I'll put it on hold so people to fix these errors before I pass or fail it. 
--Anarchyte 03:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Re: edit
Thank God somebody finally picked this one up, although I was already starting to lose interest in it, but anyways. I'll try to fix the problems you've posted, but I think that most of the copy/paste problems on the article were coming from the quotes taken from the external sites. Still, I'll be restructuring them just in case. Godzilladude123 (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)