Talk:Freelancer (video game)/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Shockingly passed GA over a year and a half ago, this article is way below GA standards. Its two main problems to it are:

• Too many Citations needed! I think I lost count on 10 or 11.
• The other reason is the article's wording. I had problem reading the article and I wonder if some sentences are nessessary, but I could be wrong on this.

I will give this article 8 days or I'll delist it. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have no idea who the original nominator was; I'd just use PageStats to find the top three or so contributors and if they're still active ping them. You're going to have to be more specific to the issues with the prose, but looking back at the version I passed it seems like almost all those {{fact}} tags were accounted for by specific refs; I wouldn't reinsert them however, because I'm not sure if there was some sort of issue (most appear to be reliable on first glance, but I cannae vouch for any of them.) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. I told User:Jappalang, the nominator, about this on his/hers talk page. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh... there were no [citation required]s when the article was passed as a GA.[1] Now what happened later was that as time passed and I got further into Wikipedia policies (especially at WP:VG/S), I realised several of the sources I used were less than reliable... I went back to a couple of my old articles and removed those unreliable sources; hence the [citation required]s here. Later, I suffered a sort of VG burnout as I keep running into "fans who insist their favorite mods should be included, without reliable third-party sourcing", "those who think they must keep the game alive", and those who "politely" insist on introducing biased elements without reliable sources or with undue weightage (thus my abandonment of Ninja Gaiden (2004 video game)—edit-war and get blocked/banned is the likely result you get with civil POV pushers unless you get substantial backing—also the NG article was pretty full of what I later realised were trivial stuff (several announcements of delay and marketing tactics??!! What is the point...). Lesser known historical and non-entertainment articles were more joyful to work on, and I did not bother to replace those citations I have removed here.

There is also another reason I stopped fixing this article. Like GamerPro64 said, some of the prose is... bad (this is after I have managed to get some FAs and read through many other FAs). It could do with some refining and sprucing up. Unfortunately, that would take some time. The [citation required]s can be removed or backed up with other sources, but would also take a bit of time (much less than the rewriting but still more than a day or two). I would not begrudge anyone if this article is delisted from the GAs, but if you could spare a week (and see if I possibly get the motivation to fix the stuff here or if someone wants to take a hack at it), that would be very much appreciated. Jappalang (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)