Talk:List of Halo characters/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
The article has many issues with verifiability, including 67(!) citation needed tags. (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've always wondered why this was a GA in the first place, and not a featured list (for which it was once nominated). Even the similarly titled Characters of God of War—both of which (and a few others) use a different naming scheme than most lists of video game characters, for some reason—is FL, not GA. – Rhain ☔ 01:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such articles should be FL. While yes, it is listing things, the articles go significantly beyond simply being curated lists. The articles are mostly prose. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To me, if you can discuss the characters as a whole (not indiviudally) in terms of their development and reception -- atop how you are discussing the individual characters themselves, that you are effectively adding more prose beyond the list of characters, then that merits calling such an article "Characters of X", which I am confident an article like Characters of Overwatch qualifies for, and under that same principle, the God of War is appropriate. If you're just basically listing individual characters with some having their own development and reception, but nothing about the group, then that is a "List of..." --Masem (t) 13:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I personally disagree—a list having some useful information about the group does not disqualify it from being a list, it just makes it a higher-quality one—but regardless, all five of our FLs (with one possible exception) fall under that criteria, so by those principles, they should have been titled "Characters of..." and nominated for GA/FA instead. – Rhain ☔ 23:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with classifying it as a list; as is you can't really do a "reception" or "development" sections on the entirety of the Halo characters because you can't really synthesize 30+ novels and a dozen games into "this is what critics said"-type constructions. That said I don't think I would necessarily structure it much differently, although as a list maybe putting some of the minor characters in tables would help encourage people not to just load them up with plot? In any case, I've reverted to a section before the mass [CN] spam as most of it is obviously sourced to specific media discussed. What does still need to happen is a serious cleanup of plot details, which I will be working on this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem:@Rhain:@MsDusa: Given discussion on WT:VG seems to have "Characters_of_..."_or_"List_of_..._characters" petered out in favor of the status quo, I'm open to revisiting this as to whether it should be a list rather than an article. I've cut a lot of the cruft and started sourcing a bit more of it, but the reality is there's a lot of stuff that I feel like for an "article"-level of context I wouldn't be able to easily cite outside of primary plot citations, and as mentioned there's not really "reception" for most characters as a whole, rather than individual characters. I think a list (maybe even reorganizing as a bulleted table) would make a bit more sense with the content I can pull sources for, myself. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that. Although I think if it is converted to a list, it may need to be delisted from GAN even if improved as this status isn't supposed to be for lists. (t · c) buidhe 00:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. I don't really think the topic really works as an article as being discussed on VG anyhow (and haven't really, since I tried to make it a list a decade and change ago now!) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a list would work best (though, then again, I think they should all be lists). I don't follow this article closely, but, at a quick glance, your recent edits have been great. – Rhain ☔ 16:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]