Talk:Angry Video Game Nerd/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Anarchyte (talk · contribs) 11:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reviewing this. --Anar chyte 11:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main review

Overall comments/Misc

Copyvio rating: 77.3% chance of violation of this page.

~~Hmm, I don't know if this is because other websites copy Wikipedia or if Wikipedia copied this source. I'll get a second opinion on that.~~

Please reword these sections.

This article relies a lot on Cinemassacre, which is a primary source.

Lead

A starting independent filmmaker, Rolfe's earliest videos of the Nerd character was intended as a joke privately shown to his friends.

What do you mean by this?

[...] the Nerd was highly influential in bringing online video reviews to the mainstream public.

Seems a little promotional, IMO.

Premise

Reference #2 (first sentence) is a deadlink with no available archive.
This section is reliant off 1 deadlink and 1 working reference, the last paragraph isn't referenced at all.
[...] him destroying whole game cartridges, or defecating, burning and sometimes even crushing entire video game consoles.

I can't find where this is mentioned in the article. Using CNTL+F for all of the words "burning", etc also finds no results.

Production

Rolfe diversified the reviews of platforms and products such as the Atari 2600, Super NES, Sega Master System and Sega Genesis video game consoles, the Power Glove and U-Force peripherals, films such as The Wizard, and the Nintendo Power magazine.

I can't find the reference for this, I've added a cn tag.

expressive lighting and camera angles to emphasize its horror film-themed narrative in which the Nerd is attacked by Jason Voorhees for disliking the game. Later episodes have alternated from straightforward game reviews to those with a narrative focus resembling a documentary, with Rolfe pointing out information about the game or gaming console under review.

This seems to be copy/pasted from the source.

Ref 10 is a YouTube video and isn't reliable, if I remember correctly.

I'll get a second opinion on that as well.

Other media

This section is pretty good, although if the references could be updated, it'd be better.
Reference 24 is a YouTube Let's Play video and is thus not reliable.
A few other references are to other media sharing sites.

Reception and legacy

The section is good.

Overall review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: (Fail)

The article stays focused but the references aren't very good. I'll put it on hold so people to fix these errors before I pass or fail it. --Anar chyte 03:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm failing (

) this because nothing changed in the 7 days it was on hold. Ana r chyte 01:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Thank God somebody finally picked this one up, although I was already starting to lose interest in it, but anyways. I'll try to fix the problems you've posted, but I think that most of the copy/paste problems on the article were coming from the quotes taken from the external sites. Still, I'll be restructuring them just in case. Godzilladude123 (talk) 14:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]