Talk:Darkwatch/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 06:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, someone has to do this after five months. I will be printing the article out and going through that with a red pen; this may take a few days (especially since I have a peer review to do also, and that will come first). Daniel Case (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gad, I wish I'd known that when I said "a few days", it would wind up being almost two weeks. I apologize for the delay.

Anyway ... after doing a light copy edit, which says a lot for the article and the attention paid to detail in the writing (there were no ergregious restructurings or rewordings required—thank you), I see that one of the two big issues I had remaining, the Heavy Metal cover image which I didn't see meeting WP:FUC, has been dealt with by removing it from the article. Excellent.

However, the other one still does, so I'm putting this on hold so the nominator can address this. It shouldn't be too hard.

Basically, it's that some of the citations are insufficient.

hold on and let me open the article, because their numbers have changed since I printed it out ... Daniel Case (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, any online cites must include a retrieval date. Use {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} to make this easier to format, as you prefer.

OK, here we go:

4, 6, 9: If these are published books, {{cite book}} should be used and more fields filled in. We should have, most importantly, the page number these facts appear on (if they're different pages, we'll need separate notes in the short form—you might want to consider just moving the long form to a "works cited" section and making all the specific footnotes short form. We also want the publisher's location if it's not, say, New York or London, and ISBN. You might even see if you can set up up with an online link through Google Books.

7 and 8: Dead links, as noted. Update. Use archive.org if you can't find a new URL.

43: Um ... author? date? Everything else we've talked about?

51, 52, 57–60: Date?

54: Article title? Issue date? Page number? Author? Compare it with the immediately following note 55.

63: This is a print magazine? Then use {{cite journal}} and give us an author's name (if given there) title

64, 65, 68 and 69 as well as some other ones before that. Make the date format consistent Month day, Year. Plus we should have an author.

67: Spell out the name of the month like all the other footnotes.

70 and 71: Date format.

72: What page? What was the piece called?

73: Who wrote this? What was it called? What do I know about this magazine that might make me consider it a reliable source?

74 (and, again, others): Use cardinal numbers in dates, not ordinals.

76 Author?

77 ISO 3001 date format is not acceptable.

79 Author and date.

83 and 84: Who publishes these magazines? What was the article called? Who wrote it?

85 Author, if any credited?

88 and 90: Date format

91: Date format.

I know this seems like a lot, and I hope I won't ruin your weekend, but if you're willing to devote a few hours to fixing this it'll pay off. Happy editing. Daniel Case (talk) 18:23, 26 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). Also, simply no author and no date, simply no author and no date, simply no author, etc. That's all the dates as used in the sources (I rewrote them all). Oh, and I just don't have these books and these magazines. And the dead links are not archived, because I already checked them (before I tagged them for being dead), due to "robots.txt". --Niemti (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not asking for perfectly formatted citations; just ones that are complete where possible and consistent.

"Make sure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing." Like, seriously. Just whatever are you basing all this on? --Niemti (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also: "Mistakes to avoid: (...) Requiring page numbers where these are not essential. Demanding the removal of dead links, in direct violation of WP:Linkrot and WP:DEADREF. Although, bare URLs are not considered verifiable, and should be formatted appropriately. (...) Requiring consistently formatted, complete bibliographic citations. If you are able to figure out what the source is, that's a good enough citation for GA." OK? (I really have to point the actual rules, to, like, almost every reviewer. I find it pretty strange, like if you guys actually didn't read all this.) --Niemti (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I really don't want to sound like an asshole, I'm sorry for that, but that's what GAR actually is. --Niemti (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will clarify this: what I'd like to see is enough information to make any particular cite verifiable ... I believe that's still part of the GA criteria. I am sorry if I came across too strong; I thank you for trying not to be an asshole as well.

When there's a cite to a print book or magazine, we need some way of verifying that the book or is real and that it was not made up. And it's not that hard to get ... for instance, here's your note 5 source. Granted, the page in question is not available there for copyright reasons ... but with the ISBN and everything else we can accept on good faith that it says what the article says it says. Here's note 4 ... OK, snippet view only but now we have proof the book really exists. And so on with note 9. I can't find that article from note 57, but here at least is a start to verification.

We do not ask for online-verifiability (although that's always nice); we just want someone to be able to walk into a library or archive somewhere and be able to check this out.

I would assume that you expanded the article with these sources already there?

Just searching this way: [1] might be often easier and give better results. --Niemti (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And of, as of, for example, #73, it's all clearly right there: Sarah Baisle, on January 5, 2006, and I don't get what's your problem with AWN at all (maybe beter just tell me whatever would make it un-reliable?). Or I don't understand "ISO 3001", which is just super cryptic. --Niemti (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say ISO 8601 (thanks Randall!). Sorry. Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean about AWN is that, if it were linked to the article that apparently does exist, I'd be able to click the link and know that's a real outlet.

Anyway, really this: "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. In particular, the GA criteria do not require compliance with several major guidelines, including Wikipedia:Notability and the main Wikipedia:Manual of Style page." --Niemti (talk) 20:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bunch of mostly different edits instead (+2kb of text/refs). --Niemti (talk) 00:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will just insist on making notes 4, 5, 14 (see under "Presentations" here) 57, 81 and 82 verifiable. I've already done the hard part there, for most of those. Address that and everything else is not really an issue. Daniel Case (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5, like the GameSpy online guide? I'm not sure what do you mean overall, besides to copy-paste the detailed info on this lecture (which I just did). Like, the "#issue XX" for these magazines, or what? --Niemti (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay now? --Niemti (talk) 12:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just put in the (ISBN 9780744005172) for that. If you do it that way, it will automatically be linked to a page that allows any number of ways to verify that the book exists. Since I couldn't get into it in Google, we'll not worry about a page number. Maybe at some point in the future if you or somebody can get a hard copy, then we can add a page number and all that good stuff. Daniel Case (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I'd like to find out is how well (or bad) the game sold, but I guess it's just impossible. I even talked with O'Connor and he said, to quote, "My partners and I never saw sales figures, sorry." --Niemti (talk) 00:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to bump, I didn't notice it. --Niemti (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... to bump? Meaning what? Daniel Case (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see, you put it in. Now it's a pass (Wow, this took long enough ... six months or so. Is this some kind of dubious record?) Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bump :) (missed the reply). --Niemti (talk) 19:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]