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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula ( talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think this falls short in several areas but not sure if to the point of a WP:QUICKFAIL. The core problem is that the notable aspects of this article are really about an urban legend; the character does not exist, so there is not much to really say in terms of information normally available for a character. So the sourcing would have to be improved by some measure to pass I think. This review is a work in progress but some early initial comments are below. VRXCES ( talk) 04:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? Yes, mostly under WP:VGLAYOUT. I'm mindful that this is part character part urban legend so any idiosyncrasies aren't really a problem.
Is the article broad enough in its coverage and contains reliable sourcing? Generally not. The article is heavily sourced from the Morton article which, compared with an article with few sources, raises several problems:
Do the sources cited verify the text in the article?
Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? Sources cited, purpose stated mostly.
Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination?
Oh my God. Herobrine's here. TWOrantulaTM ( enter the web) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No copyvios, per Earwig. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Herobrine's origins, design, characteristics, reception, and impact are all covered within the article. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Obviously. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Herobrine character and original image sighting are correctly tagged. Flickr image of Herorbrine cosplayer is freely licensed. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Render of Herobrine and screenshot are relevant (of course they are), and the cosplayer image is, well... passable. | |
7. Overall assessment. |
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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: TrademarkedTWOrantula ( talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately I think this falls short in several areas but not sure if to the point of a WP:QUICKFAIL. The core problem is that the notable aspects of this article are really about an urban legend; the character does not exist, so there is not much to really say in terms of information normally available for a character. So the sourcing would have to be improved by some measure to pass I think. This review is a work in progress but some early initial comments are below. VRXCES ( talk) 04:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Does the article conform to the general standards of WP:VG articles including the WP:VG/MOS? Yes, mostly under WP:VGLAYOUT. I'm mindful that this is part character part urban legend so any idiosyncrasies aren't really a problem.
Is the article broad enough in its coverage and contains reliable sourcing? Generally not. The article is heavily sourced from the Morton article which, compared with an article with few sources, raises several problems:
Do the sources cited verify the text in the article?
Are media and links properly attributed and do not have copyright issues? Sources cited, purpose stated mostly.
Any other personal opinions or miscellaneous feedback that may or may not be relevant to the nomination?
Oh my God. Herobrine's here. TWOrantulaTM ( enter the web) 15:35, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | No copyvios, per Earwig. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Herobrine's origins, design, characteristics, reception, and impact are all covered within the article. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Obviously. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | Herobrine character and original image sighting are correctly tagged. Flickr image of Herorbrine cosplayer is freely licensed. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Render of Herobrine and screenshot are relevant (of course they are), and the cosplayer image is, well... passable. | |
7. Overall assessment. |