Talk:Sarah Kerrigan/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has a reception section that has been tagged with {{expand}} since Decempber 2011[1] (the current date is the result of a recent edit war between myself and another editor). After some attempts to resolve the situation at the talk page, resulting in the removal of any real analysis of reception, I have decided to start a reassessment. A Good article cannot have an expand tag on it as this suggests that it fails the "broadness" criteria and this is not an article I wish to continue edit warring over. AIRcorn (talk) 19:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree with your stance here. The whole situation has resulted in one of the few sources in the article that actively discussed reception and character themes—as opposed to "this character has been ranked in this list"—has damaged the article here. The reliability of the source is worth further discussion, preferably at a more specialised location such as WT:VG/S rather being than unilaterally declared unreliable by a single editor. As the author of the original GA version of the article (among the first batch of VG character GAs some four years ago, when the standards weren't as realised as they are now), I'd love to see the article properly updated and retained as a GA. I fear, however, that I do not have time to do so myself. Nor can I be bothered to deal with the abrasive attitude of the editor with which you had your conflict with. If anyone else wants to take up the mantle of working to retain the GA status, they're more than welcome to it. -- Sabre (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Its a shame, I think that this or this version is actually at a Good standard, or at least at one where I would not open a reassessment. I am not a Video game editor (I haven't even played this game) so don't have any expert knowledge on the reliability of WomansGamer.Com, but the arguments presented on the talk page are entirely unconvincing. I noticed there was a discussion over at the videogames wikiproject concerning many of the issues here underway when I left the notification, so am surprised no one else has weighed in. Will leave it a little longer in case you change your mind or someone else turns up, otherwise I think the best solution is to just delist it. AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Found Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 1#WomenGamers.com. Can't find the archives of the bios in the waybackmachine so don't know for this particular case, but it is not an automatically unreliable source at least. AIRcorn (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Regretful delist. The issues still remain unfortunately. Feel free to renominate it again when the reception section is sorted out. AIRcorn (talk) 08:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)