Wikipedia:Featured article review/GameFAQs/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 17:38, 5 September 2012.

Review commentary

 * Notified: RockMFR, WikiProject Video games & WikiProject Computing

I believe that this article clearly fails the FA criteria in regards to 1c (sourcing) and 2c (citations). About 2/3 to 3/4 of the citations in the article are to GameFAQs itself--I think it should be delisted primarily because of this level of dependence on primary sources. Also, the citations are inconsistent and poorly formatted. There has been very little activity on the article over the past couple years, and no one responded to my post on the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * History section seems rather sparse. Did nothing of note happen in the many gaps? Did any signficant history occur between 2004-06 besides the few one-offs mentioned? What about after 2007?
 * History also needs a copy edit. Most sentences are "In/On [this date], [this happened]." again and again. Also, "Veasey's departure" should be expanded or merged elsewhere.
 * Could a better picture of the HQ be found? That one has such a bad angle I feel like I'm watching Battlefield Earth.
 * Are the user levels on the forums really that important to an average reader? There also seems to be some undue weight on them versus the history.
 * Likewise the contests. This seems like fancruft to me.
 * As mentioned by the OP, there are far too many primary sources.

Comments from Teancum Teancum (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article relies far too heavily on primary sources. Of the 92 references I counted 17 that were not primary--too many primaries by a huge margin.
 * Many refs need updating with Cite web parameters that are missing, and some lead to forums (though usually the post is by a GameFAQs employee) and may need reassessed


 * The sourcing was admittedly very weak when it originally became a FA – I stretched primary sources further than probably any FA ever has. And if anything, it has degraded since then. In its current state, I think it also fails to be comprehensive. Unfortunately, I don't think sufficient secondary sources exist such that this could be changed to be a FA-quality article at this time. — RockMFR 01:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you got a lot out of it, that must have taken some work :) Things were different back then, for sure. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comments All the above...plus one sentence section (not just one sentence paragraph), two cite needed tags. This simply isn't up to snuff. Pumpkin Sky   talk  11:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Issues raised in the review section primarily dealt with sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delist due to sourcing issues above, which I don't think can be fixed any time soon, if at all. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist, none of my concerns have been addressed. There are still huge gaps in the history, and way too many primary sources and what looks like straight-up fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist per and, as well as FA concerns per . JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  07:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist. Very obvious sourcing problems, and a lot of content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. The Moderators section is particularly problematic in this regard. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delist mainly due to sourcing problems, per WP:CITE and WP:RS. TBrandley 02:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.