Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Rikku/1
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 • • Most recent review
- Result: Ughhhh, seems like editors disagreed GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
It has several issues. Concept and design section seems to be flimsy, especially at the reception section where most of the scholarly books/sources wasnt implemented yet, thus the article isn't "broad on its coverage" yet + some of those trivia sources should be eliminated. There is also an secondary image, maybe remove it to avoid sandwiching the paragraph (Reception sec). GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Passerby comment. I can't agree with the second sentence. First off, if there really is image sandwiching in a GA, this is WP:SOFIXIT territory - just move the image or change its left/right orientation, it's not GAR-material. Second off, there isn't sandwiching anyway. MOS:SANDWICH is about when text is channeled into a narrow "column" on smaller windows, e.g. by a left-aligned image near a right-aligned infobox. There is no such sandwiching happening here, it's just a perfectly normal right-aligned image with nothing on the left. (A {{clear}} can be added if what you meant is that the image pokes into the references section on wide resolutions, but this is, again, a one-line fix and not something for GAR. In fact I'll go add that right now.)
- I'll let others look into it more, but from a surface glance, I don't see what's "flimsy" about the concept section. A vague complaint gets an equally vague response - is there something more specific you think is an issue with that section? (I don't have an opinion on the Reception section complaint and haven't looked closely, will let others weigh in on that.) SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- If we can't find anything more for the Concept and design section, then the reception section is the only problem when most of the content were not implemented. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- What content was not implemented, Greenish Pickle!? You refer to scholarly books/sources—which do you mean? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, there are a lot of scholarly and web.archive.org sources wasn't implement yet for the article to be "broad on its coverage". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with the good article criteria, unless you can describe what is important about this content. "Broad in its coverage" is not about requiring comprehensive inclusion of every source in the universe for the sake of it (WP:GACN). In fact, unnecessary detail is explicitly discouraged in lieu of summary. LoK Wiki (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Greenish Pickle!, please provide the sources along with reasons justifying why they should be included. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, there are a lot of scholarly and web.archive.org sources wasn't implement yet for the article to be "broad on its coverage". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- What content was not implemented, Greenish Pickle!? You refer to scholarly books/sources—which do you mean? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- If we can't find anything more for the Concept and design section, then the reception section is the only problem when most of the content were not implemented. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 22:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
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.