Talk:Five Nights at Freddy's/GA2

GA Reassessment

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I've never really been quite sure that this page should be listed as a good article, and re-reading it I am convinced it shouldn't. To me it conflicts with 1a, 2b, and 2c of the GA criteria. Problems I notice include (but may not be limited to):

• Original research, unfortunately, seems to run rampant in this article. The "Gameplay", "Characters", "Games", and "Music" sections are mostly, if not entirely, unsourced. For example, statements like The main antagonist of the series is a mysterious man commonly known as "Purple Guy" and the second game introduces upgraded versions of the original characters in the "Characters" section could easily be challenged.
• The OR also causes a problem with WP:GAMECRUFT because this article is filled with in-universe details that make no sense to a general reader. You only need to read just a portion of the "Characters" section to get what I'm talking about.
• Sourcing is also concerning because there are so many questionable references. Examples include "Attack of the Fanboy", "www.vinereport.com", "Gamenguide", "Player.One", "Twinfinite", and Steam forums. Some of these are listed as unreliable sources at WP:VG/S. And this list is far from exhaustive, this is just from a simple glance—it'd take me a lot more time to list all of the questionable sources this article uses.
• Prose is also lackluster. The reception section suffers from a quotefarm issue, for example, and there's also WP:POV problems like "Products created through these companies include stuffed toys, action figures, posters, clothing, keychains, and even stationery."

Overall, I don't think this article should be listed as a GA with all these problems. JOEBRO64 22:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

It should not be listed as GA with any of the problems either. I have to agree that all of this makes the article a C-class article, and I would not at all expect it to survive as a GA if the problems remain after weeks. I have an article that is being reviewed for GA and perhaps someday for FA: SkiFree, and it does not look anything like this rubbish. At the very least, if I feel like it, I will scan this article and replace all the unreliable sources with the "citation needed" tags. The sooner we fix this, the better the chances of the article retaining the status. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 00:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This looks really bad. The original reviewer, who hasn't been active since 2017, pretty clearly had no idea what he was doing looking at the reviewed version. A lot of the prose is very unprofessionally written and repetitive. A lot of the article content feels like cruft. If anyone's to fix it, this article will need a total strip-down and rebuild, a la WP:TNT (well, maybe not that far, but at least two thirds of it would have to go, by my estimate). Agree with Gamingforfun365's assessment of C-class here, and full of severe problems. I would currently !vote to delist for the time being. At this point, even with fixes, I would think that so much will have changed that a new GAN would be recommended anyway if someone does tear it down and fix it. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend looking to see if they reviewed any other articles since we may have several bad quality GAs.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I checked and the user passed three other articles at GAN but they don't look as bad. Both Theme Hospital and Micro Machines seem GA quality to me, and the only real problem I have with NHL 17 is its reception section isn't exactly the best. Note that the user who reviewed the article is still active; they just edit under a different username nowadays. JOEBRO64 22:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree, its big but it has a lot of details that aren't sourced.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

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.