Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mileena/1

Mileena

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Strong consensus to delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article has whole sections without sourcing, and several vastly overdetailed sections that can and should be cut down. Article also overrelies on lists, and some of the cited sources do not entirely say what they are cited for, a standard with Niemti's articles. Overall the whole thing needs a vast rewrite. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Despite the recent clean ups of Beemer69, it needs a lot more and the article is HUGE. Some sections are a bit outdated, overdetailed and unsourced. GlatorNator (ᴛ) 01:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. This was GA’d a decade ago when the “bigger is better” mentality was the norm for good VG articles. But now it’s a ton of cruft and unimportant detail mixed in with some useful content. I’ve been just taking out the trash for starters, but it’s definitely time to put up the scaffolding. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 03:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: As a person who promoted this to GA in the first place nearly 11 years ago, (wow, has it really been that long?) I would have to be in support of a delist today. I'm going to have to echo Beemer69 on the whole "bigger is better" mentality, along with the fact that at the time, I felt everything was so well-sourced, well-written and so detailed, but this was still during my early days on Wikipedia, and standards have changed since 11 years ago. Maybe this can become GA again someday, should take the time to fix up the article, but for now, a delist is the way to go. MoonJet (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It needs a serious cleanup job. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:13, 8 June 2023 (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.