Talk:Mega Man X (video game)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Solar Police (talk · contribs) 16:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I had to fail this article mainly because it does not have enough citations. The lead section does not have any citations. Solar Police►Talk 16:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations, there is no need to add references to the lead as long as its information is already referenced in the body.Tintor2 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the barnstar. I'm sorry you did not feel Mega Man X (video game) was not up the Good Article criteria. However, though you stated it failed "mainly because it does not have enough citations. The lead section does not have any citations," you did not elaborate on any of the specific parts of your review where you stated "nay". For instance, how is the subject not broadly covered?

Just for future reference, as per Wikipedia:Citing sources: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." I feel I adequately cited the lead information in the body.

Also, you can place a nominee "On Hold" for a given period of time if you feel the issues can be addressed by the nominator in a reasonable amount of time. Had you done this, I could have argued the lead citation guideline as above and fixed any other problems you had with it. But, it's at your own discretion. Seeing as how you've already failed the article, I intend to renominate it in the near future. Regards. ~ Hibana (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]