Talk:MicroEmulator

MicroEmulator was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 15, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

GA Review

Unsuccessful. ForksForks (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:MicroEmulator/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Appsoft4 (talk · contribs) 04:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ForksForks (talk · contribs) 18:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Unfortunately, I am going to fail this good article nomination, because it is a long way from meeting some of the good article criteria. However, you shouldn't be discouraged -- your article is a good starting point for a well rounded article. Here are the problems I see:

The lead is very short, and contains citations. The lead should summarize the content of the article
The history section is barebones and contains several unsourced statements. We prefer to see paragraphs with detailed info. See the essay WP:PROSELINE for helpful advice (though PROSELINE is not a guideline)
Contains a user guide (see the policy WP:NOTGUIDE
The extensive feature list is too technical for a wikipedia article.
Some statements are cited up to 7 times. See WP:CITEKILL

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.