Talk:Faker (gamer)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk · contribs) 10:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

✅ I'll review this. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):


 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

Five more international titles

 * "Competing back again in Champions Summer 2014, while the team qualified for the playoffs, they were eliminated again the quarterfinals. eliminated from the quarterfinals
 * Easyhoon played at Worlds only to "keep Faker's ego in check," — place comma outside quote
 * "marking the first time had been named MVP at either MSI or Worlds." —He had been named
 * "the Michael Jordan of esports." — Place period outside
 * "the "best contract in esports history." — Ditto
 * "stating that he was not performing well and "needed some time." — ditto
 * "Nonetheless, SKT reached the LCK Summer Finals, but they were defeated by Longzhu Gaming." — Word should be substituted with an encyclopedic alternative
 * "Nonetheless, T1 topped their group stage and made it to the semifinals, before they were defeated by DWG KIA." — ditto
 * "Surrounded by talent, Faker won his seventh LCK title, after SKT defeated Griffin in the 2019 LCK Spring Split finals." — this dependent clause is POV

Tenth domestic title (2022–present)

 * "he received and offer of $20 million from a Chinese team compete in the LPL." — fix grammar
 * "Faker hit several career milestone.” — “milestones”?
 * Wikilink Jian "Uzi" Zi-Hao to Uzi (gamer)


 * "Faker picked up another LCK title in the 2017 LCK Spring Split, after SKT swept KT Rolster, 3–0, in the finals." — Remove comma after 3–0
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a. (reference section):
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * Sources are reliable in accordance with WikiProject Video games/Sources
 * b. (citations to reliable sources):
 * Sources are reliable in accordance with WikiProject Video games/Sources
 * Sources are reliable in accordance with WikiProject Video games/Sources

(Criteria marked are unassessed)
 * c. (OR):
 * Everything is sourced
 * d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a. (major aspects):
 * Article omits irrelevant information
 * b. (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Nominator is impartial in approaching the subject
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
 * Images are properly licensed
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall: Will continue with the spot-checking of the sources later. Placing this on hold for now. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass/fail:
 * Update: Hi Pbrks, I just finished reviewing the article against criteria 2, 3, and 4 and I've marked each as a pass. The article should be ready for GA once the remaining issues are addressed. Sorry to have kept you waiting, I've just been busy lately. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the nominator has not responded to my comments since the review began, I'm gonna have to take this as an indication that they are no longer interested in pursuing this nomination or have other things in their mind. The nomination is therefore a fail, for now. Nominator may take another shot at GAR at a later date. Until then, prose issues must be addressed. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. I apologize for not responding sooner, I did not think that it warranted one until the article was fully assessed. I ask that you reopen this GAN, as it has only been two days since assessment. Thanks. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. Five days later and you didn't even bother addressing relatively simple prose issues before asking me to reopen the GAR, this only proves your indifference to this nomination. On top of that, my preliminary notes began almost a month ago, and you were given ample time to address them in my absence; but alas, I came back later without a single comment back from you. Granted, I think it's only wise that I fail the nomination so that you can concentrate on other endeavors, and another reviewer should take up the mantle should you renominate. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You should not expect your review to be completed until you have completed your review. It’s hypocritical that you spent a week from accepting to a partial review, then took another 2 weeks to finish, and then expected a response in less than two days. I hope this isn’t how you handle other GANs. I agree, another user should take up any future nomination of this article. – Pbrks (t • c) 13:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Images are properly licensed
 * b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall: Will continue with the spot-checking of the sources later. Placing this on hold for now. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Pass/fail:
 * Update: Hi Pbrks, I just finished reviewing the article against criteria 2, 3, and 4 and I've marked each as a pass. The article should be ready for GA once the remaining issues are addressed. Sorry to have kept you waiting, I've just been busy lately. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the nominator has not responded to my comments since the review began, I'm gonna have to take this as an indication that they are no longer interested in pursuing this nomination or have other things in their mind. The nomination is therefore a fail, for now. Nominator may take another shot at GAR at a later date. Until then, prose issues must be addressed. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. I apologize for not responding sooner, I did not think that it warranted one until the article was fully assessed. I ask that you reopen this GAN, as it has only been two days since assessment. Thanks. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. Five days later and you didn't even bother addressing relatively simple prose issues before asking me to reopen the GAR, this only proves your indifference to this nomination. On top of that, my preliminary notes began almost a month ago, and you were given ample time to address them in my absence; but alas, I came back later without a single comment back from you. Granted, I think it's only wise that I fail the nomination so that you can concentrate on other endeavors, and another reviewer should take up the mantle should you renominate. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You should not expect your review to be completed until you have completed your review. It’s hypocritical that you spent a week from accepting to a partial review, then took another 2 weeks to finish, and then expected a response in less than two days. I hope this isn’t how you handle other GANs. I agree, another user should take up any future nomination of this article. – Pbrks (t • c) 13:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the nominator has not responded to my comments since the review began, I'm gonna have to take this as an indication that they are no longer interested in pursuing this nomination or have other things in their mind. The nomination is therefore a fail, for now. Nominator may take another shot at GAR at a later date. Until then, prose issues must be addressed. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. I apologize for not responding sooner, I did not think that it warranted one until the article was fully assessed. I ask that you reopen this GAN, as it has only been two days since assessment. Thanks. – Pbrks (t • c) 14:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope. Five days later and you didn't even bother addressing relatively simple prose issues before asking me to reopen the GAR, this only proves your indifference to this nomination. On top of that, my preliminary notes began almost a month ago, and you were given ample time to address them in my absence; but alas, I came back later without a single comment back from you. Granted, I think it's only wise that I fail the nomination so that you can concentrate on other endeavors, and another reviewer should take up the mantle should you renominate. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You should not expect your review to be completed until you have completed your review. It’s hypocritical that you spent a week from accepting to a partial review, then took another 2 weeks to finish, and then expected a response in less than two days. I hope this isn’t how you handle other GANs. I agree, another user should take up any future nomination of this article. – Pbrks (t • c) 13:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)