Talk:Make Love, Not Warcraft/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

I don't feel like the article meets the current GA criteria, unfortunately.

For starters, the prose seems awfully simplistic (do not read "simple"). It could be improved in order to make the message clearer in a lot of places, and also there seems to have noticed some problems with the tone in the Plot section (the only section I didn't read). It also isn't very clear for people unfamiliar with the the game and /or the episode. The Reciprocation section, for example. I suppose that "/hug" emote plays a hug animation (ain't I smart), but where does the connection with the show come in (what connection does this emote have with the show). The lead could also do with a few improvements.

There are some minor style problems. Referencing is without any problems, but they are either placed before or after the punctuation mark, or worse, there are sentences that don't end with a punctuation mark. Also I'm pretty sure that external links within the main body of the article should be avoided as much as possible. Diego_pmc ^Talk 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but it states very clearly in the Reciprocation section that you receive a "Make Love, Not Warcraft" PvP achievement. If you can't see what having an achievement called "Make Love, Not Warcraft" has to do with an episode called "Make Love, Not Warcraft", I don't know what to tell you. On the other hand, if you're complaining that you don't know what a PvP achievement is, that's explained in the reference given. To devote space in the article to explaining World of Warcraft game mechanics is to go beyond the scope of the article, and in fact Wikipedia, and would likely be deleted as a violation of WP:NOT#GUIDE. Hence the need for the WoWWiki reference. We could put the WoWWiki link in the body of the article (perhaps linking "PvP achievement") but as you've already stated we should be avoiding doing that. So clearly there's no way to improve upon what's already there. As for the suggestion that the whole article isn't GA material, I can't argue that. It's a struggle enough to keep the cruft out from anons and others, this article still needs serious work. -- Atama^chat 18:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, a week has passed, and there doesn't seem to be anyone against delisting this article. Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is well written, clear and useful - which is far more than can be said for your vague, rambling objections. I disagree with the little I can understand of what you're saying. I am relatively unfamiliar with the show, and wholly unfamiliar with the game. After watching this particular episode by chance, I read this article, and found it interesting. In my opinion, deleting it would be vandalism. Rubywine (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't up for deletion, and if it was I doubt it would have a snowball's chance of being deleted. But it does need work, and while I've tried to fix things here and there I'm not skilled enough with encyclopedia content to reword it properly. -- Atama^chat 02:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're responsible for rewording the article, well done. I think the end result is fine. There are a zillion other issues worth worrying about more than the style of this article, and AFAIAC the tag is just irritating. Rubywine (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)