Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Giant Bomb/1

Giant Bomb

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Giant_Bomb/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Delisted per referencing concerns, and no "keep" votes after over a month Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Have to say that it might be difficult to figure out a precedent for video game websites. Polygon and Ars Technica are other notable websites that has decent quality. But I don't feel like Giant Bomb's article is all that well. I feel like there is too much use of primary sources on it, linking back to GB articles. Other sources are very questionable (Cinema Blend, anjelsyndicate.org, oxJane). There is a lot of details in the article that might be seen as unnecessary. What's the purpose of the last paragraph in the "Industry Impact" section, for example? Is there really a need for the "Criticism and Controversies" sections? Or the "Employees" section? I might be wrong about my criticisms but this article does come off as bloated. GamerPro64 04:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As the person who wrote 95% of Giant Bomb's content I'm just posting here to acknowledge the reassessment and rule myself out of the discussion. I've had no time to spare to wiki writing these past 10 months so while I'm sure more 3rd party sources are out there to replace the primary sources I won't have time to look for them until February/March at the earliest. If Giant Bomb loses its GA status in the meantime so be it, thanks. --FLStyle (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed with GP64. (1) This is more "referred to as" than "cited" but it's also a claim that Klepek is not making with editorial distance... it's from primary source, sycophantic email as he asks for the company to hire him... Almost all of the primary sources should be killed in this article—usually a lack of secondary source coverage indicates that the point is not worth mentioning. And the non-WP:VG/RS sources should also be justified, and based on a spot check of their usage, I think they're best deleted too.  czar  16:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)