Talk:Rachel Amber

Rachel Amber was nominated as a Video games good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (August 13, 2023, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 27 June 2023, see discussion.
keep, 16 August 2022, see discussion.

Video games: Characters Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Video game characters task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (1 participant)
Bejeweled Stars (5 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (5 participants)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (13 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Featured content candidates

Good article nominations

DYK nominations

No did you know nominations

Reviews and reassessments

Articles that need...

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

This article may need to be rewritten to conform to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards

Hello Greenish Pickle!! Could you please provide some details, what you think needs to be rewritten in which regard as the one who tagged the article? That would be helpful. What does anyone else think? Daranios (talk) 13:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Daranios, I saw the article being sent to GAN. It should combine or expand the single paragraph sections, at the very least the ones that are just one sentence. Plus, maybe fix some of the refbombings cites. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I submitted the GAN too early. Should I pull it and come back? Or can I work on improving it with other editors while it is being submitted? @Daranios:. @Greenish Pickle!:.

This is my first GA submission. So I'm open to any tips. Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can work it during GAN GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@KlayCax: I think the big issue I'd have with the GAN is that you hadn't really edited in a while, and things may have changed. Did you review the article to make sure that it's up to GA standards? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Unsuccessful. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:23, 13 August 2023 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rachel Amber/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs) 08:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite template recently attached to the article is correct, in my opinion, enough that the issue prevents a GA pass at this time. As it stands, much of the article is composed of lengthy quotes, which is not a good way to write encyclopedic prose. Quoting should be used to supplement encyclopedic text, not to replace it. Although it is an essay, WP:Overquote provides some useful direction on this - generally you want to reserve quoting for the most interesting and/or difficult-to-reword phrases.

As an experiment, I edited the article to remove all of the quotes, then compared the word count before and after. With quotes, it's ~1700; without, it's ~1100. If you don't count the ~200 word lead (which contains no quoted material, and is a summary of the body anyway), that's 600 of 1500 words or nearly 40% of the body of the article made up of quotes. The article must be rewritten to appropriately paraphrase its sources before it can pass the GACR.

Although it is not on the GACR, I would suggest condensing the sections under "Fictional biography", perhaps to "Original game" and "Additional games and media". Also noticed that you have two instances of 4+ citations (reception to Chloe & Rachel's relationship and fridging of Rachel). It's very rare to need more than 3 citations for a single point. I would suggest removing the least significant of those references, and/or expanding the content to justify the content (in other words, where you have one sentence, you could expand to have three and move some of the citations to support the expanded content). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 13 August 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.