Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Samus Aran/1

Samus Aran

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: No consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely bloated and out of date reception section, and inconsistent referencing, among many other issues. Consensus from both talk page and WikiProject Video games that the article no longer meets GA standards. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist article still needs a lot of work, update and clean up.l despite sone editors attempted to clean up. Hold. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 23:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not opposed to delisting, but I'd like to ask that it not be rushed to desliting. Kung Fu Man and I are working on both cleaning up the reception and finding strong reception to add, as well as addressing sourcing issues. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hold As long as it is actively being improved. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Improvements have been very impressive so far. I also recommend holding for now. Damien Linnane (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cukie Gherkin:@Zxcvbnm:@GlatorNator: Improvements seem to have stopped. The reception section is magnitudes better, but the issue of inconsistent reference formatting remains, and there's also citation requests. If this article was nominated for GA for the first time now and I was the reviewer, I wouldn't pass it until those issues was addressed. But since it already is a GA article and improvements have been considerable, I can't say I'm overly opposed to the article retaining its status for the time being and this GAR closing. I'm happy to hear the thoughts of others. Damien Linnane (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not stopped, just slowed down. I'm doing it bit by bit. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I understand. In that case I won't check in again for a while. :) Damien Linnane (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I took care of the citation needed tags. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Damien Linnane, GlatorNator, Cukie Gherkin, Zxcvbnm, and QuicoleJR: do you feel that the article has been improved sufficiently to retain GA status? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not currently see any major issues that would disqualify it from being a GA. QuicoleJR (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only remaining issue I see is the inconsistent referencing. As mentioned, if it was a new nomination I wouldn't pass it for GA until that was addressed, but I certainly don't think that's serious enough to strip the article of its current GA status. Damien Linnane (talk) 14:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some things I'd like to do to improve it more, such as trim the Dread plot summary (but I don't want spoilers so), but otherwise I don't think anything there is disqualifying for GA status. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 16:04, 17 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.