Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Sarah Kerrigan/1

Sarah Kerrigan edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: All issues resolved. Thanks to the participants. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the statements were unsourced. The article is outdated and also suffers from WP:PLOT and perhaps out of date reception section. Also, some of the contents from reception isn't talking about her directly. So as per that, I believe the article no longer meets GA standards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GlatorNator: I don't disagree with you at all, I just wanted to say I intend to try and fix the issues to prevent de-listing. Can you tag what you'd like sourced? If you can, giving me some more specific examples of what's wrong with other sections would help me fix them quicker too. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also what's outdated outside the reception section? She hasn't appeared in any major games since the ones covered. Damien Linnane (talk) 00:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is only unsourced. The reception was also flimsy, it only got big with listciles that doesnt talk directly to her. Thats it. Best of Luck. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 00:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, the article still haven't recieved substantial improvement. The plot still needs to be trimmed (some of them are unsourced) + it is still not broad on its coverage since sources/scholarly books at further reading and more at WP:BEFORE wasnt implemented yet. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GlatorNator: While I already added citations outside of the plots, it was my understanding that plots don't need to be sourced. I thought this would be unnecessary, but in any case I've now both sourced and trimmed them as well.

Broad statements like "and more at WP:BEFORE" are extremely unhelpful to anyone trying to address issues. I note in your initial nomination you said the article was "outdated" without giving any more context, though then retracted that allegation as soon as more clarification was sought on what the issue was. So considering that, I'm going to have to ask you to be very specific about what is wrong with the article, rather than just saying there are "more" issues without clarifying what they are.

You did point out the sources listed at further reading haven't been integrated into the article. Accordingly, I'll start working on that. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is now better unlike before. Thou, I think the only issue might be about broad on its coverage at reception. I think if you implemented the sources from further reading, and reword some of the listicles like "included her or ranked her at the top" then that's it. If you can find more per WP:BEFORE, it'll be better. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 04:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GlatorNator: I've done my best to improve the reception section. If you think the clean-up tag there can now be removed, please consider doing so. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for working on that article. It is way better than before. So, I will prefer this GA article to be Kept or withdraw this GAR. Regards. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 07:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thou, I was hoping to see your another GA article, Max Payne (character). I think that article still doesn't show that the article passes notability or broad on its coverage at reception seciton. 1st paragraph needed to be rewritten and it mostly contains ranking and listicles, again. It might be nominated at GAR soon if the article hasn't been fixed yet. Thank you. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 11:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely don't have time to work on that at the same level as I did on Kerrigan straight away, but thanks for the advanced notice. I'll keep it in mind and will try to improve things here or there as time permits, regardless of whether it is nominated for GAR or not. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. This GA article will be Kept anyway. Nice job. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 13:42, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.