Talk:Pokémon Pinball: Ruby & Sapphire/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This page was nominated back in 2010, and I do not feel it meets the GA criteria by any means now. Even just briefly skimming through the article I notice plenty of things that make this fail the criteria.

1. The gameplay section has absolutely zero sourcing and a nice "additional citations needed for verification" template to go with it
2. Noticeable lack of any kind of development section
3. Uses unreliable sources, such as GameFAQs
4. The reception section is a complete mess. It's just a hashed-together laundry list of "[x] said [y]" with barely any attempt at trying to weave them into sentences.
5. The page was also filed under Sports & Recreation, which doesn't make any sense.

This article does not meet the criteria, and as such I vote to delist. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• Delist I have removed the GameFAQ ref/GameRankings because we have Metacritic instead, but gameplay being a complete WP:V failure is unacceptable for a GA and a major deal-breaker for me. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• Delist The entire Gameplay section does no contain any references and the article has other issues.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 23:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• I'm gonna be busy for a little while, mind holding off so I may fix the issues? Thanks. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, how long do you think you will be busy for? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 04:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Will be free by the 30th. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @Namcokid47: Hey, you can go ahead with it. Will probably still be busy, plus I'm just having trouble getting into Wikipedia editing at the moment. Also, in the future, please inform me when you nominate an article I brought to GA for removal. Thank you. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Why? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 20:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
          • Why what? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
            • @Namcokid47: - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
              • I'd be interested in knowing why I'd have to specifically contact you when I intend to assess a GAR on one of your GAs. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 22:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                • @Namcokid47: At one point I'd have said it was common courtesy to give the relevant editors a heads up so they can participate in the discussion and possibly fix the issues presented, but right now I'd point out that it's literally the fifth step of nominating an article for reassessment. The GAR page also suggests measures before taking things to GAR, such as letting people know about the issues. For example, if you had brought up the issues with Donkey Kong Jr. Math to me before nominating it to GAR, it could have been fixed. I understand that you've not done much with respect to GAR, but it is really off-putting that you didn't read the steps to nominating an article for reassessment and got defensive about simply being asked to do an easy, courteous thing. I have the right to participate in a GAR of an article I participated in, and if it is too much to inform me of its existence, you shouldn't be making these nominations. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                  • I made a discussion about this GAR before nominating this and was told to simply go ahead it, but okay. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                  • (btw, you can stop pinging me to this discussion thread. It's in my watchlist which I check constantly, so I already get notified when there's an update to it. Plus it's generally annoying.) Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                    • Dawg, making a discussion that does not in any way involve involved editors of the article does not fulfill step 5. Again, if you're not interested in following the appropriate steps of GAR, don't bother doing it. I have absolutely no idea why you are so opposed to doing a simple, reasonable, expected task. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                      • What if the nominator hasn't been active on Wikipedia in a while? What if they left the site entirely? What would I do then? Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                        • You message the nominating user. I'm also unsure why you're asking me what you should do in a hypothetical situation that doesn't apply to this situation. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                          • The point I'm trying to make here is that I don't see how this automatically invalidates a GAR, that it somehow makes the page okay and follow the criteria. If an article fails the GA rules, which this page you made clearly does, then I'm gonna start a reassessment for it. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                            • It's not invalidating it?? This conversation is occurring because I asked you to do something that is not only basic courtesy in the future, it's mandatory. Why are you being so combative over being asked, politely, to do something so simple? This conversation has no reason to be going on this long, and could have ended a lot sooner if you said "whoops my b." - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
                              • You asked me something, I asked for you to explain why, and you gave me a reason for it which I didn't agree with. That's not being combative. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait, you disagree with the instructions, or you disagree that the instructions mandate informing editors involved in the article? - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• No, I disagree with having to specifically notify the editor about the page and just delay the entire process when I should just be reassessing it. This discussion is going nowhere, the page has already been delisted, and I have better things to do with my time. This is the end of the discussion for me. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 23:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Namcokid47: Every time, 100% of the time, when you nominate an article for reassessment, you HAVE to tell the involved editors. I'm not talking about it being mandated to inform people of quality issues, I'm telling you that it is courteous. But I am telling you that it is incredibly improper that, twice in a row, you have failed to inform me that you nominated an article for reassessment that I nominated for GA. If you fail to inform me of a GAR again, I will be informing an administrator. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 23:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Abryn has a point. Point 3 of WP:GAR (before initiating a reassessment) states: Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. Remember, the aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it. Point 5 of WP:GAR (The instructions for individual reassessment) also states: Notify major contributing editors, relevant WikiProjects for the article, and, if recently GA reviewed, the nominator and the reviewer. The {{GARMessage}} template can be used for notifications by placing {{subst:GARMessage|ArticleName|page=n}} ~~~~ on user talk pages. Replace ArticleName with the name of the article and n with the subpage number of the reassessment page you just created. I am suprised how quickly this article got delisted, we need to give contributors time to fix outstanding issues to GA articles.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:14, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Fine, I will notify the nominator before attempting a GAR. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 01:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 01:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)