Talk:Dishaster/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

I'm confused as to why this has been listed as a good article, considering that there's a number of glaring issues still present in it:

Digital Press, used twice in the article, is not a reliable source (per this discussion)
Article lacks a development section, which in my opinion should be necessary for a video game page (especially one at GA)
Reception area uses way too many direct quotes from reviewers. Additionally, the section also isn't well written. Example: "The reviewer for TV Gamer magazine wrote, in 1983," who is "the reviewer"? Could we get a name?

As such, I do not think this article meets GA status whatsoever. Namcokid47 (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone didn't do a proper review of the game and just compared it to another GA article, it almost seems like they did it to prove a point or just inexperienced. I vote to delist this as well.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that this article should be delisted from GA status.--Megaman en m (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to delist. Poor article and poor GA review. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to delist as well. This is a C-Class article at best. Poor judgement on the reviewer's part (in fact, one of the changes they proposed back then only added more ambiguity to the phrase in question). --letcreate123 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not appear to have received a proper review of its contents. Delist. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 03:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's obviously a large consensus to delist the article, many citing its poor quality and bad nomination. Unless there's anybody who objects, I will now delist the article and close the discussion. Thank you to everybody that responded! Namcokid47 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]