Talk:Agar.io/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tortle (talk · contribs) 05:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Any comment on this review after passing it (e.g. see this review for an example). Esquivalience t 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , where's the review? At the very least, the lede's development stuff should be moved into a development section, the "original research" inline tag should be addressed (a citation for every paragraph), and the lede should be a summary of the article's contents rather than the place where items are first cited... Also there were no dev interviews on the dev process for the dev section? – czar   15:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Judging their other GA reviews and drive-by GA nominations, I don't think the reviewer fully understands the process. They've only made 48 mainspace edits.--The1337gamer (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Can an experienced editor reassess the article? Although I still believe that it nearly meets the GA criteria, there's always something wrong. Esquivalience t 16:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, some more comments:
 * There is no "development" section because a) it's a relatively new and simple game b) there are no reliable sources covering the development; just some Reddit speculation and c) the development process is opaque. If someone can find RS on the development, then I'll add it in.
 * There is semi-protection as with any other game propagated through social media. It's not an edit war or content dispute; but addition of garbage links, copyright violations, and vandalism. Esquivalience t 16:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a bunch of interviews from a simple search. They're fine to add as self-published sources. – czar   16:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There's some good information right there - added development section. Esquivalience t 17:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Article renominated for GA. Esquivalience t 17:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)