Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's/GA1

GA Review (REV. 1)

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

Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 07:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am Manfred von Karma. You should know me from the original Ace Attorney (I'm still dead, sadly). This is a review of the article Five Nights at Freddy's (series) vs. the Good Article promotion criteria. This being said, the criteria are relatively strict, thus so is this review. Also, being a von Karma means all good heart left in your soul is crushed with only thoughts of perfection, in this case every article on Wikipedia being perfect. Even still, my general lack of feelings only usually applies to reviews.

To clarify, I am reviewing the following revision: 02:07, April 13, 2017‎ WackyWikiWoo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (62,279 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (better wording- repeated "around" sounds weird)

Also, before I get into things, I'd like to thank WackyWikiWoo, Empoleonmaster23, Lemaroto and TheJoebro64 for major contribs to the article. Props to you guys.

Part 1: Immediate Failures Test

After analysation, I conclude that the article does not fall into the category of having an immediate failure. There is no evidence of ongoing edit wars, copyright infringing content or plagiarism.

Part 2: Well written?

If you ignore a couple sentence flow issues, this article is relatively well written. It is concise but not overly simple, and on the other side of things, doesn't go into full blinding detail of things. Great job. Criteria 1, in my books, is fulfilled.

Part 3: Well referenced?

This article has some extremely questionably sourced references. Some references that I don't deem satisfactory in quality control are:

[34] User-generated content from fanfiction site Wattpad
[24, 36] YouTube let's plays (unless they are longplays w/out commentary)
[53, 57] Steam user forums

This would classify as a major referencing problem. Ba-bow.

Part 4: Covers all topics?

This article doesn't cover enough of the franchise to be considered GA. We are missing a proper description of the gameplay in Five Nights at Freddy's 3, a large chunk of information in the meat of the article -- the video games section -- as well as entire sections. Appreciated would be a Common elements and Music sections. For Common elements, editors could talk about things like the animatronics, being jump-scared to high hell, looking through cameras and the dirty locations like the pizzerias/factories/fright rides/whatever. For Music, the infamy of the "out of power" jingle in the original, the ambience, etc. A good reference article for this is the article Sonic the Hedgehog (series). It isn't a very good article in terms of the other sections, but the Common Elements section would serve as a good reference point. So, consider criteria numero tres unfulfilled.

Part 5: Neutral?

The article is neutral in its perspective. You would expect an article about Five Nights at Freddy's to be written by rabid fans who praise the game like it's the second coming of Zeus but the article is surprisingly neutral. This passes.

Part 6: Stable?

The fact that there's semi-protection on this article throws up more than one red flag. I usually wouldn't consider an article that needs physical protection against vandals to be 'stable', but from what I can see, the last incident that happened was ~four months ago, so this section gets an 'ehhh'.

Part 7: Images?

Image quality and quantity are both perfect here. The use of the Steam bundle artwork was a good idea. This criteria passes with flying colours.

Overall?

Overall, I don't think I see this article to be fit to be GA unless better references are supplied and some more information is injected into it.

As per usual, I will re-review the article in a week to see changes and pass down a verdict. If it does not change in a week, my verdict will be swift: "no". I will also encourage others to review the article. No hard feelings?

If anyone challenges my opinion or wants to start a discussion, see me after class on my talk page.

Manfred (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@WackyWikiWoo: just wanted to make a suggestion: the "Music" section you added is filled with tons of speculation and is sourced at unreliable sources, like IMDb. If you want to get this to GA, you haven't got much time... ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review (REV. 2)

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

Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 07:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all!

This article is looking a lot better! I do like the new sections. Yet, there still needs to be a lot more content. I would consider this almost GA. May I direct editors of this article's attention to the article Super Smash Bros.? It is a great reference point for making a small video game series article.

My final verdict here is: ON HOLD

I will leave this article on hold for 7 days. Yes, I'm doing this again because I really think this article amounts to a lot of content, and the article is **almost** there. I don't like putting an article on hold twice...

I can't stress enough: if the article isn't up to scratch within 7 days, I have to fail it. If that does happen, don't stress! You can re-nominate it once you think it's ready again. See denial as just a notification to make the article better and re-nominate it at a later date.

Remember, don't stress!

Manfred (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I realised I forgot to update the article status talk page last time. I have done so now. Manfred (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review (REV. 3)

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

Reviewer: Manfred von Karma (talk · contribs) 07:55, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone!

Everything I asked for in the second revision of the review is now present in the article. I really like the Common elements section, and the new and improved Video games section. I have no choice now put to status this article as a Good Article!

I'll check back on this article every so often to see if it keeps its status. Also: this is an ongoing franchise, so some sections of this article should be expanded when the time comes that we have more information (see: The Freddy Files).

Congratulations everyone!