Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Deus Ex Go/1

Deus Ex Go edit

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

Result: kept AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request a community reassessment because I have made a huge mistake during the reviewing of the article (along with others): not fact-checking. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 19:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fact-checking is not part of the GA criteria. What parts of the criteria does the article not meet? czar 19:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although fact-checking may not be part of the GA review process, verifiability is: you should certainly be checking the referenced sources to see whether they back up the article and whether the article properly reflects the source material. Gamingforfun365, If you didn't do that originally, then why aren't you doing it now before filing these reassessments? If you do find some problems, then I can see opening a community reassessment—you're not eligible to open an individual one having been the original GA reviewer—but if you can't cite any actual factual issues, then you should do your homework before coming here to GAR. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm 100% confident that czar performed due diligence on fact checking and meeting WP:V. I recommend this GAR be closed. A review of the GAR opener's talk page and contributions will show a history of issues with GAN/GAR/FAC. -- ferret (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ferret, when the GA reviewer (that was Gamingforfun365's role here) says that they did a substandard review and omitted some of the standard requisite checks during the review, it behooves the community to step in if they are unwilling or unable to check. The fact that this GAR has been submitted instead of the checks being done by this reviewer is clear evidence of issues, and I think they should refrain from future participation in the GAN/GAR/FAC space. However, even the best editor can make mistakes; it would be inappropriate to close this before those checks are made here and in the other two GARs that have been submitted. It's not as if the GA status is withheld in the interim. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not speculate about GF365's motivations. @Gamingforfun365, would you be willing to do a spot-check of sources? I think if you were to check that several of the article's facts match their cited sources, both you and this reassessment would be satisfied. czar 21:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did some checking:

Ran the check links tool - all the references are valid, nothing resolves to a dead link or something similar.
I checked every. single. reference. for at least one fact and I could find no issues at all.

Other than the alleged sloppy fact-checking, is there anything else that is possibly an issue with this article? It was asserted that the sourced facts weren't checked, well now they have been.
In my opinion I think this reassessment should be closed as a non-starter. Shearonink (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink, if you didn't find any issues in this area, then I agree with your assessment. Thanks for the great work. The problem was that the original GA review didn't check any of the sources against the article, so we couldn't know whether there were any issues or not. Now that you have, it's clear that there aren't any issues. (I didn't see any other issues on a quick read-through.) All we need now is someone uninvolved to close this. Pinging AustralianRupert, who sometimes does closes in the community reassessment space. (Note: this would be the second of three to be closed; the first was here.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I will happily close this one. I will wait 24 hours, though, to see if there are any objections. If not, I intend to close the review as "kept". Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have closed this now as "kept" based on the above. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]