Talk:Metaverse/GA2

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

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 17:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a quickfail. There are several reasons that combine to deliver this one. Reference quality needs bolstering in several areas, and the lead section needs more references to fix citation tags. I also have concerns about stability in the long run given the topic. (I also suggest adding alt text to the image, but that's not a reason for the quickfail). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:09, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Addressing copyvio
I examined the four red- and yellow-flagged sources in Earwig, which were also a sticking point in GA1. I believe they copied from us, so I don't have an issue with them. A less experienced GA editor might not understand how Earwig flags pages like this (it does hide most mirrors of Wikipedia).

Depth of coverage and stability
The metaverse is a bleeding-edge topic. In the three-plus months this sat at GA, there were more than 50 edits, a significant chunk of them rolled back by the nominator. The nature of this page on a buzzy tech topic means it will always need extra attention to defend it from POV- and promo-pushing editors, so this is partly appreciated.

I find myself asking if it's just too soon for a GA on the metaverse while applauding your efforts to keep the page free of promotional material. Increased depth and use of academic sources, which are going to become available constantly in the coming years given the profile of the topic, would provide a key step toward GA. This is quite a highly consulted page, so improvements like this are strongly encouraged for the benefit of our readers.