Talk:Donkey Kong Jr. Math/GA2

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

Reading through this again, there's definitely some major problems with it that I think makes it fail the GA criteria. This is a pretty old GA (it was nominated and passed in 2011), and obviously the standards for GAs have been changed since then, but the quality is still rather poor. For the reasons I have stated, I vote to delist this. Namcokid47 (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) None of the Gameplay is sourced. None. For a GA, everything needs to be sourced so as to prevent bogus information from being added or from making assumptions about things that can't be verified.
 * 2) There is a glaring lack of a development section, only a release section, which in my experience with writing GAs is a necessity.
 * 3) Multiple "Citation Needed" templates in the Release section.
 * 4) Lots of the release dates are not sourced.
 * 5) Lots of the sources in general have inconsistent dates.
 * 6) The Reception section has zero reviews from the game's original release. If none can be found it's okay, but the article states "Since its release for the NES, Donkey Kong Jr. Math has been a critical and commercial disappointment". How can it be determined it was met with negative reviews in its original release if none of them are in the article?
 * I do appreciate the diligence to mind outdated GAs, but you really need to let people know and, ideally, bring up these issues in a non-official way (ie, just posting on the talk page and @ing the nominator), avoiding going through a more bureaucratic process if all issues can be addressed. It feels a little rude particularly that you did not message me about the GAR, as I would not have known about the GAR if this wasn't on my watchlist. - Bryn (talk)  (contributions) 21:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm still very new to reassessing outdated GA articles (this is only the second I've done, after Dishaster), so I'm still getting used to how it works. So I do apologize on that behalf. In response to the line about being able to address these issues, I'm not sure if that is even really possible. There's nothing I could find on the game's development, nor was I able to find any reviews from around the time period it was released. Had I been able to find them I would gladly have just added them to the page and moved on with my day, but considering that I couldn't, and that I noticed several more errors with the article itself, I feel as if a GAR is needed. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really see that, but again, nothing is really harmed by delaying the GAR process and giving time for the issues to be addressed. While you may not have found information, that information may still very well exist. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Um.....what? Just because you think the information out there exists should not at all make this GAR invalid. That's ridiculous. I haven't found anything that could help address the criticisms I've brought up, we can't just be assuming things. That isn't how this stuff works. Namcokid47 (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that the GAR was invalid? I'm just giving you advice. I was making the point that it's a good practice to not go straight to a GAR, as bringing it up first with the note that it may go to GAR if the issues aren't addressed gives the chance to avoid GAR altogether while potentially fixing the issues. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Release section has been expanded into Development.
 * 2) No longer an issue.
 * 3) No longer an issue.
 * 4) No longer an issue.
 * 5) Found one review from the time period, though the assertion that it received negative reception in its time is now supported with a citation.

As it is, the only issues that need to be dealt with are the citations for Gameplay and a general quality improvement. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 08:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The Gameplay section is now sourced, and the Development section has been improved. I believe at this point there is nothing outstanding for the GAR to stay open. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think some of the writing could be improved (such as in the lead and bits of the Development), but it looks a lot better now. Good job. I'll close this. Namcokid  47  (Contribs) 22:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)