Talk:Super Mario World/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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.

---

I do not believe that this article meets the GA criteria anymore. From a quick glance, I notice that this article has a severe number of tags, most of which are citation needed tags and some of which I have appropriately added. There are four one-sentence paragraphs, source #3 is a bare link, and source #6 (GameFAQS) is an unreliable source per WP:VG/RS. I am not convinced that that is how we should develop citations as in source #10. I think that this article is in need of major cleanup before it can survive still being a GA. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 16:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

• I looked at the revision that was passed as GA and to be honest I don't really think it met the criteria. And seven years on, I think our standard have improved whereas the quality of this article has not. That said, if experienced editors are willing to chip in, it probably wouldn't take long to get it to GA. First priority should be fixing all the unsourced information. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reading the Reception section, I notice that it almost only talks about how great the game was, rather than also talking about what aspects critics have praised and what aspects critics have criticized. I shall tag that section as incomplete, with the reason being that it does not provide enough information as to what aspects critics liked and disliked. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 00:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delist - I would agree that this does not meet Good Article criteria. In addition to what's been mentioned above, there are whole huge sections that are unreferenced. I'm not a fan of the lead's citations, either. It feels like someone is trying to force a point. --Teancum (talk) 11:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
• @Gamingforfun365: It's been over 2 months since this reassessment was opened and it's probably due some closure. Are you aware that this is an individual reassessment? The closing decision should be left to the editor initiating this reassessment, which is you. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Closing sentence: Having been reminded of the review and having had a fairly quick glimpse at the article, I notice that it is still as bad as it appears to be, so after 2 months of waiting, I think that it is safe to close this reassessment and delist the article to a lower level. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 00:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

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.