Talk:Jelle's Marble Runs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Nova Crystallis (talk · contribs) 22:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing later. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 22:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

With permission from Nova, who I talked to on Discord, I'll be sharing some comments about the article. I look a quick look at it and I have to say that this will need some work before it can pass. Right now the lead section is very short: Only two sentences, and it doesn't even discuss the rules, history, and other facts. Per the Good Article Criteria, a lead section must be at the very least a summary of the entire article, discussing at the minimum a basic overview of the subject. In addition, the "Teams" and "Results" sections are undersourced, with only a few references. In addition, they don't even go into detail into things like why each team name was chosen, why certain team names were retired, and so forth. There's also relatively little discussion about reception, instead only focusing on YouTube views. If there's not much information about reception that exists then I suppose that's acceptable, but the coverage in the article could be better. Nova will be sharing their thoughts later or tomorrow. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I have to concur with Narutolovehinata5's statement, and I feel like this article is still missing quite a few things, on top of what was described above. For example, the article lack any details of the events (no names, to begin with). An infobox could be appreciated here, but it is a minnow of an issue. Otherwise, if you can fix most of the issues we mentioned in a week, perhaps the review could continue when you're done expanding the article. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 07:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

For an update, I'd like to say that I would now agree that a large majority of the article has plenty of inline citations. As for expansion, I'm sure that the lead could be expanded a little more, but I think for now it gives a basic summary of the article. The History section was expanded a little more, with sources. I have also added a section for events. As a side note, it now includes an infobox and image. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 22:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I am just going to pop in here and say that this article needs more secondary sources. Right now there are more sources linking directly to the Youtube channel in the article than anything else, and there are large passages which are entirely based on them. Which is a big no-no, see WP:PRIMARY. Everything under Events and below that needs to be re-evaluated right now. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski - As much as I like the MarbleLympics, I don't think the article could pass a GA in it's current state. There's a massive {{in universe}} issue contravening Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. The article is written as if the marbles are actually real athletes. It's also an article stat dump, and even fails WP:TRIVIA. As above, there are issues with the article not having enough WP:SECONDARY sources. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I am going to throw in my two cents and stay that their is a lot of links that is to primary sources instead of secondary sources which for an article that is attempting to go for a GA properly will need. Also may why this article even exists as it's properly one of the lowest if not the lowest YT page to have an Wikipedia article. Matt294069 (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@Lafayette Baguette: Is it possible to add more sources for the prose outside of the YouTube channel itself? Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: I just took a quick search and I think finding secondary sources will be a challenge as it hasn't really gotten much more detailed coverage other than what's already in the article. Personally the stats table and teams stuff could be enough to fail this GA, and the more I think about it, the more skeptical I am that the issues can be resolved anytime soon. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Considering the issues pointed by editors above, and the lack of response from the nominator, I will fail this article under criteria 1b and 3b. This does not mean you can't renominate this article, but it'll need quite some work before it has a chance to pass. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 02:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)