- Article ( | visual edit | history) · Article talk ( | history) · Watch •
- Result: Delist
naerii
16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Consensus appears to be to delist, the article has had little work done to it, for example the lead is still sparse. naerii 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I've nominated this article to GAR because there are three "citation needed" tags. David Pro ( talk) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- That's not a good reason for GAR. Take it to the talk page. --
haha169 (
talk)
18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think that there is still reason for it to need reassessment. The easter eggs section is starting to read like a trivia section, which indicates that there may be more edits that were made between now and when it was last reviewed that have gone unchecked. It has been almost a year since the last time it was formally reviewed, and the last peer review seems to address only general problems instead of article-specific problems. I think that a reassessment would benefit this article. — OranL ( talk) 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, the lead is also not up to par. It is far too short for an article of this size and doesn't adequately summarize. Nikki 311 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Lead, as noted above, is not long enough (needs information on reception, et al.) and should not have citations.
- Gameplay doesn't adequately introduce readers to the game, and is too focused on minutae (i.e., easter eggs.)
- Citations, in addition to those already marked, should be added for some dubious claims.
- "All Bonds" section suffers from undue weight. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delist - the article needs many things to fix. David Pro ( talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delist. The article is not well written. It focuses too much on trivia and doesn't really explain the game adequately at all. -- Malleus Fatuorum ( talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- Delist per above. Failure to meet WP:LEAD is particularly clear. Geometry guy 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- I lean toward delist. There's no one major problem; rather, there are numerous low-level issues. The lead isn't terrible but could be better developed so that it provides a more complete encapsulation of the article. The prose is often cluncky and some paragraphs are stubby. The article also contains a small number of {{fact}} tags. Majoreditor ( talk) 04:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)