Talk:WWE SmackDown! vs. Raw 2006/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.'' As part of WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force, all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) Unfortunately, I have determined that this article fails criteria is several critical ways. Due to the severity of the issues presented above, and the fact that the issues are still prevalent in the GA pass oldid, I am delisting the article. You may renominate at any time, but I strongly recommend that an editor or editors who want to take this back to WP:GAN try and address the above issues. Questions or comments should be directed to my talk page; comments left here won't be responded to, I'm not watching this page. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, the prose is poor: spelling, grammar, and punctuation problems are glaring throughout: "The arena crowd has also improved ,with" and "pal Box art of the ps2 version" are two examples that caught my eye right away. There are many one or two sentences groupings set aside as if they were paragraphs—but they aren't given that a paragraph requires at least three sentences (these stubby nonparagraphs should either be merged, cut, or fleshed out.)
 * Secondly, there's an issue with referencing. Large swaths of the article are unreferenced; we're dealing with a wrestling video game, so for the common reader most of the text won't be admissible as "common knowledge" that doesn't need to be cited.
 * Along those lines, a huge issue is that the article almost entirely cited and thus dependent on sources from IGN; at my quick reckoning, >50% of sourced statements (basically almost everything until reception) is sourced to IGN. This is a definite no-no; referencing should use as wide a sampling of reliable sources as possible, not just the one or two from one publication.
 * Also along the lines of "common knowledge", the entire tone of the article is just plain wrong. It's phrased almost like an advert; it tells you what's been updated, but not how the game actually works—if you haven't played an earlier game, this article is useless for you to learn how it works.