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.
Request withdrawn -I'll work on the article more and resubmit it for FAC review instead. So please archive this review.
JC7V (
talk)
20:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 15:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for
GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria- This article was demoted in 2009. However, it looks like it's been fully re-written, so no complaints from me. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It contains copyright infringements- CopyVio check doesn't fill me with confidence. Will have to ask someone more familiar with these to check if they are copywriting from Wikipedia, WP:MIRROR, or if this is somesort of Copyleft Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}).- There are no current tags for this purpose. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page.- No insight of edit warring. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Very well written section. I have no issues. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this is where my biggest issue is. Most GAs would have some sort of prose regarding the differences in specifications against it's competitors, and each version. Looking at PlayStation 4 which is a GA, this even has a seperate split topic on the subject, but everything is written in prose: see PlayStation 4 technical specifications. Even thoigh Nintendo 3DS isn't a GA, this has a great version of this section. Other GA articles such as Dreamcast also have a prose version of this.
I'm not sure I would support a promotion with this as a simple list; for it failing being well written. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with this. A table does seem like the most suitible way to describe this information in this instance. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think serial codes are notable at all. Noting that the games are non-region specific, is important, and that the consoles only work with the correct versions is fine, but I'm not sure the table is needed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
As of December 31, 2012 the Digital Comics Server has been taken offline and earlier bought comics can no longer be re-downloaded." - make into one paragraph/sentence, and source. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
A nice reception section is a definate for a GA. This one is good. I'd mention the sales section should be included here, and the final two sentences should be included in such a section. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for working on the technical specifications. That would have been pretty much a complete halt to me passing this as a GA. There are quite a few outstanding issues above, and the article needs a serious copy edit (I'd actually request one at WP:GOCE, before I finish this (That's good practice in general before nominating a GA.)
The issues are missing punctuation - sometimes sentences miss off full stops, or commas; or the wording is really poor. A quick copyeditor would be able to sort this out, but it can take a couple days for someone to look at it. I'm happy to put the remaining review on hold until a copy edit has occurred. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
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.
Request withdrawn -I'll work on the article more and resubmit it for FAC review instead. So please archive this review.
JC7V (
talk)
20:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Lee Vilenski ( talk · contribs) 15:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status, over the next couple of days. Thank you for nominating the article for
GA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors could refrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I will use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria- This article was demoted in 2009. However, it looks like it's been fully re-written, so no complaints from me. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It contains copyright infringements- CopyVio check doesn't fill me with confidence. Will have to ask someone more familiar with these to check if they are copywriting from Wikipedia, WP:MIRROR, or if this is somesort of Copyleft Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid. These include{{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}).- There are no current tags for this purpose. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page.- No insight of edit warring. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 15:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Very well written section. I have no issues. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I think this is where my biggest issue is. Most GAs would have some sort of prose regarding the differences in specifications against it's competitors, and each version. Looking at PlayStation 4 which is a GA, this even has a seperate split topic on the subject, but everything is written in prose: see PlayStation 4 technical specifications. Even thoigh Nintendo 3DS isn't a GA, this has a great version of this section. Other GA articles such as Dreamcast also have a prose version of this.
I'm not sure I would support a promotion with this as a simple list; for it failing being well written. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with this. A table does seem like the most suitible way to describe this information in this instance. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think serial codes are notable at all. Noting that the games are non-region specific, is important, and that the consoles only work with the correct versions is fine, but I'm not sure the table is needed. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
As of December 31, 2012 the Digital Comics Server has been taken offline and earlier bought comics can no longer be re-downloaded." - make into one paragraph/sentence, and source. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
A nice reception section is a definate for a GA. This one is good. I'd mention the sales section should be included here, and the final two sentences should be included in such a section. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for working on the technical specifications. That would have been pretty much a complete halt to me passing this as a GA. There are quite a few outstanding issues above, and the article needs a serious copy edit (I'd actually request one at WP:GOCE, before I finish this (That's good practice in general before nominating a GA.)
The issues are missing punctuation - sometimes sentences miss off full stops, or commas; or the wording is really poor. A quick copyeditor would be able to sort this out, but it can take a couple days for someone to look at it. I'm happy to put the remaining review on hold until a copy edit has occurred. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)