The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 29 March 2019 [1].
One of the only times FAC will stand for F******g Awesome Content dude, we have the South Park: The Fractured but Whole article. Comprehensive, well sourced, and open for review. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Geez, it's been a year since I passed this at GAN? Time flies... anyway, reading it again I have no nitpicks, this looks FA quality. Nice work. JOE BRO 64 20:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Just one small thing I noticed: In "Critical response", there is a direct quote and the quotation marks are not right. "the truest, best adaptation" of South Park ever made". Where does the quote end? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 18:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Overall, wondering work on the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 ( talk) 18:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Not the level of commentary I would've hoped for by this stage (I'm sure DWB feels likewise!) so I'm listing at FAC urgents but if nothing much changes in the next week I'd expect to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 09:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
is "New Kid" in the lead needed? I understand the plot needs to have some use in the lede, but could the article not use player character, or say "a new kid", rather than the character's name as "New Kid"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Got your Bat-Signal from WT:VG. I've supported on prose above but I'll also take the time to do a source review. From a quick glance everything looks OK, but I'll do a deeper look tomorrow. JOE BRO 64 21:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, here's what stood out to me:
That's all that stood out to me. IMO the only significant issue is the Metro sources, which can probably be replaced. JOE BRO 64 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this has come along this far without evidently a serious look at the use of sources in the article. The Reception section suffers from the "quotefarm" endemic that's so common in media articles (This source said this. This source called it this. Etc.) In the first full para of the Critical response section, I see direct copies of wording used in the cited articles without even proper quotation, which is plagiarism and a copyvio. I'm afraid I must firmly oppose until, at the very least, the Reception section is rewritten and the entire article audited for other plagiarism. -- Laser brain (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This review is pushing two months long and it is a concern to see issues such as Laser brain raises at this stage. I'm therefore going to archive and ask that we pls audit and reword per his recommendations and then come back for another try after the usual two weeks. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot ( talk) 29 March 2019 [1].
One of the only times FAC will stand for F******g Awesome Content dude, we have the South Park: The Fractured but Whole article. Comprehensive, well sourced, and open for review. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Geez, it's been a year since I passed this at GAN? Time flies... anyway, reading it again I have no nitpicks, this looks FA quality. Nice work. JOE BRO 64 20:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Just one small thing I noticed: In "Critical response", there is a direct quote and the quotation marks are not right. "the truest, best adaptation" of South Park ever made". Where does the quote end? Zwerg Nase ( talk) 18:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Overall, wondering work on the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 ( talk) 18:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Not the level of commentary I would've hoped for by this stage (I'm sure DWB feels likewise!) so I'm listing at FAC urgents but if nothing much changes in the next week I'd expect to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 09:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
is "New Kid" in the lead needed? I understand the plot needs to have some use in the lede, but could the article not use player character, or say "a new kid", rather than the character's name as "New Kid"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Got your Bat-Signal from WT:VG. I've supported on prose above but I'll also take the time to do a source review. From a quick glance everything looks OK, but I'll do a deeper look tomorrow. JOE BRO 64 21:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, here's what stood out to me:
That's all that stood out to me. IMO the only significant issue is the Metro sources, which can probably be replaced. JOE BRO 64 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm concerned that this has come along this far without evidently a serious look at the use of sources in the article. The Reception section suffers from the "quotefarm" endemic that's so common in media articles (This source said this. This source called it this. Etc.) In the first full para of the Critical response section, I see direct copies of wording used in the cited articles without even proper quotation, which is plagiarism and a copyvio. I'm afraid I must firmly oppose until, at the very least, the Reception section is rewritten and the entire article audited for other plagiarism. -- Laser brain (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
This review is pushing two months long and it is a concern to see issues such as Laser brain raises at this stage. I'm therefore going to archive and ask that we pls audit and reword per his recommendations and then come back for another try after the usual two weeks. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)