Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wii U/1
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: (Noting that an IP brought up concerns over this article at WT:GAN) Delisted. Seems to be the typical rubber stamping case, which is something I expect with old GAs. Like 2005-2010ish old. If anyone is willing to take the arduous task of actually promoting this to GA, you are welcome to do so. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The article was poorly reviewed and was promoted like almost instantly without a spotcheck, reliability check, and others during the GAN review. Upon checking the article, I noticed multiple problems. Some of the sources have an unnecessary wall of quotes, inconsistent format of citations/missing authors or websites, and others, usage of unreliable, primary or low quality sources such as TeachGeek, Vooks, IBM, Failoverflow, GamingAge, Nintendo itself (primary a lot), Metro, outdated information on other sections or the prose is not GA quality, refbombs, other unsourced statements like in "release" section and "launch games" section, reception should be rewritten. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- It has been quite a while since I have even logged onto Wikipedia, I was told by other people (I cannot remember who specifically) that the article was completely fine at the time of Review. Due to my long vacation from Wikipedia, I have forogtten a lot of Wikipedia Standards and thus cannot improve the article without first spending a lot of time re-learning Wikipedia Standards. Sorry to say, but I dont think I can say much about this one. PerryPerryD Talk To Me 09:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, this is one of the reasons I personally have no interest in the GA process - all it takes is two extremely lax editors in agreement to completely game the system. At first I figured this was the typical "quality decay" that occurs over time, but there was a disappointing lack of scrutiny or detail in its GA Review. I can't believe no one objected before, though that could come down to no one noticing due to the Wii U's general irrelevance in the 2020s. It shouldn't have even passed then, let alone be upheld now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well that's a coincidence. Also @Sergecross73, that's kinda dissapointing. I did look through at the reviewer's history in [[1]], but I think the only main issue was this article. I hope you will not lose any interest in GA or FA since there has been a project already to get rid of the GA icon from bad shape articles like what does Z1720 do. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's fine, that's always been my stance on the GA process, I've never really participated directly with noms or reviews. I just get articles up to B status and move on to something else, and others take it to GA/FA if they want to deal with the process. Nothing new with me. (Sorry for the non sequitur.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Well that's a coincidence. Also @Sergecross73, that's kinda dissapointing. I did look through at the reviewer's history in [[1]], but I think the only main issue was this article. I hope you will not lose any interest in GA or FA since there has been a project already to get rid of the GA icon from bad shape articles like what does Z1720 do. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)