Talk:Sniper Wolf/GA1

GA Review

Passed — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:10, 1 March 2013 (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.

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 04:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

I will take on this this week, as promised. Cheers! — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, starting this one.

Prose

I am very satisfied with the prose. I didn't know why I didn't take this article before. Good work Niemti.

References

The problem arises here. I am not satisfied with how the references are formatted. Would you mind going ahead and checking each reference and give them a proper format? I see information missing (for example, ref No.1 is missing publisher, author, date, accessdate) and several date formats mixed altogether. — Ṟ Ṉ 17:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing else to note. — Ṟ Ṉ 17:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "Perfectly formatted citations are not required." (that's okay, most reviewers miss this part, I have to point it out often). --Niemti (talk) 17:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, next I wanted to write about either Meryl, EVA or The Boss. Probably Meryl, and as for The Boss I feel someone else's going to it do now or eventually as she's now announced to be the protagonist of the next MG game. --Niemti (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that perfectly formatted references are not needed, but I think they should have at least some order :) I know it won't cost too much to make them look pretty, and this would help just in case you want to take this article to FA. Cheers. — Ṟ Ṉ 18:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I never try FA, because it's a chore and not fun. [1] has actually neither an author nor date, it's just database. --Niemti (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. The accessdate and publisher may only be needed. I am still seeing the other refs with date issues ("Retrieved August 3, 2012." vs. "Retrieved 2013-02-17." vs. "7th May 2012."), and also you use commas in some refs, and periods in others. — Ṟ Ṉ 22:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually one of these things that I find to be a chore. Many of these refs were actually filled automatically, just using different Wikipedia tools for it. --Niemti (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that hard. I'm sure it won't take more than 5 minutes to make. I won't feel comfortable passing the article with the refs in its current state :/ — Ṟ Ṉ 16:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK now? --Niemti (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is how they have to look like for GA :) I will do a source check now. Regards. — Ṟ Ṉ 17:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually need to be just anything but bare URLs. --Niemti (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm not exactly. You will have a hard time finding a reviewer passing an article without the sources well-formated. It doesn't have to be the best-formatted refs in the world, but they may have at least this: [link TITLE]. Publisher. Accessdate. — Ṟ Ṉ 17:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But really, "Perfectly formatted citations are not required." means "Perfectly formatted citations are not required." (Also: "Enthusiasm in wanting an article to be the best it can be is admirable, but take care not to impose conditions for passing the article, perhaps based on your own stylistic preferences, that exceed the criteria.") This is like the only thing that kept Final Fantasy VII from FA, and this was the first and the last time I nominated anything for FA, because no I'm not doing it. --Niemti (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I'm not asking for perfect formatting like this: Last, First (date). [link TITLE]. Work. Publisher (Country). Accessdate. <-- That's a perfectly formatted ref ^^ — Ṟ Ṉ 21:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you asked, and then did it. But it's just not needed. Sure, you can do it, but if you like. --Niemti (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Cteung (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written well a looks to be original work. The layout of the categories are clear and make sense, but can be made better. I think it will help if there were another heading for the characters history, some of it was mentioned under the Appearances heading. It may be worthwhile to put it under a history heading, and possibly expand on it.

There are a large quantity of verifiable third party sources. Great citations and use of quotes.

It seams like this article is still waiting on a stable version, there have been quite a lot of reversions lately.

For the most part this article meet the criteria outline in Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria but not all the way quite yet. Cteung (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.