Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/GoldenEye 007/1

GoldenEye 007

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

Result: Delist naerii 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus appears to be to delist, the article has had little work done to it, for example the lead is still sparse. naerii 16:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated this article to GAR because there are three "citation needed" tags. David Pro (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good reason for GAR. Take it to the talk page. --haha169 (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is still reason for it to need reassessment. The easter eggs section is starting to read like a trivia section, which indicates that there may be more edits that were made between now and when it was last reviewed that have gone unchecked. It has been almost a year since the last time it was formally reviewed, and the last peer review seems to address only general problems instead of article-specific problems. I think that a reassessment would benefit this article. — OranL (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, the lead is also not up to par. It is far too short for an article of this size and doesn't adequately summarize. Nikki311 04:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comments
  • Lead, as noted above, is not long enough (needs information on reception, et al.) and should not have citations.
  • Gameplay doesn't adequately introduce readers to the game, and is too focused on minutae (i.e., easter eggs.)
  • Citations, in addition to those already marked, should be added for some dubious claims.
  • "All Bonds" section suffers from undue weight. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Delist - the article needs many things to fix. David Pro (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. The article is not well written. It focuses too much on trivia and doesn't really explain the game adequately at all. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Failure to meet WP:LEAD is particularly clear. Geometry guy 23:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
• I lean toward delist. There's no one major problem; rather, there are numerous low-level issues. The lead isn't terrible but could be better developed so that it provides a more complete encapsulation of the article. The prose is often cluncky and some paragraphs are stubby. The article also contains a small number of {{fact}} tags. Majoreditor (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)