Article(
|
visual edit |
history)·Article talk(
|
history)·Watch
Unfortunately the article does not meet the GA criteria. With a cleanup banner at the top of the article and 19 citation needed tags, it cannot remain a GA unless these issues are remedied. (H/t to 45.119.84.59 who brought this issue to my attention). (
t ·
c) buidhe01:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)reply
I don't think an AFD would succeed for notability concerns, since there are a couple of decent sources that I think would at least allow the subject to pass the bare minimum of the
WP:GNG. But, I agree that the "Reception" section is pretty terrible to the point of its inclusion being actually detrimental to the quality of the article. It really misrepresents how much coverage there actually is in the cited sources, as these are mostly just reviews of the games that just very briefly mention the Covenant as part of the overall discussion of the game. One of these (the Edge review) never even mentions them by name, simply calling them "enemies", and the article on the Guiness ranking has absolutely no information on them, simply listing their name in a list.
Rorshacma (
talk)
17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping, but I am not a content expert on first person shooters in general, and have no particular expertise in sourcing. In general, I oppose any AfD on a good or featured article, since the community has already reviewed it at least once, it deserves the chance to remove that imprimatur, and THEN an XfD can be held if it does remove the designation. I've heard arguments that something can pass GA and still be deleted at XfD, but I've never heard one that I found even somewhat compelling.
Jclemens (
talk)
17:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
Notability and quality are two separate issues as you can write a high quality article on a non-notable subject. Notability is not reviewed as part of a GAN and Good Articles have been deleted at AFD with no issue regarding their GA status. So if you think it is non-notable this is not a barrier.
Aircorn(talk)21:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)reply
"The Sacred & the Digital: Critical Depictions of Religions in Video Games" page 165 - Cites the Covenant as a clear reference to Christianity and gives examples of how their name relates to it
"Reframing 9/11 - Film, Popular Culture and the "War on Terror"" page 100 - Cites the Covenant invading Earth in Halo 2 as an intentional parallel for America invading the Middle East.
That alone is definite proof even though there are certainly more out there. So the issue is not notability but really poor sourcing used in the article. It should probably be demoted back to C-class and undergo GAR again after it is rewritten/incorporates these sources. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)14:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Factions of Halo and demote if not. The sourcing only has depth on in-universe context and does not cover the independent, external notability of the topic. Honestly all of the recurring factions should be upmerged to
Halo (series) and then split out to something like the dedicated Factions article when warranted by
summary style overgrowth. Per Piotr and Aircorn above, this question of notability is assessed independently from the quality assessment criteria. Even considering Zxcvbnm's sources above, I don't see the depth to support a dedicated article witout delving into in-universe trivia, which is the state of the current article. I'd suggest taking a stab at merging this content where it already belongs in summary style and only then evaluating what a dedicated article provides that isn't already covered in the merged section. The merge discussion should happen on the talk page (and notify
WT:VG), not in this GAR. (not
watching, please {{ping}}) czar18:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)reply