| Revision as of 19:12, 16 October 2024 editMFTP Dan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers27,346 edits →Dr. Mario: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:27, 16 October 2024 edit undoZ1720 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators29,927 edits re: MFTP Dan citations at the end of every paragraph now requiredNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :*It's probably not very desirable to wipe out a decade's worth of edits with a wave of a wand. <span style="background:black;padding:1px 4px">] ]</span> 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | :*It's probably not very desirable to wipe out a decade's worth of edits with a wave of a wand. <span style="background:black;padding:1px 4px">] ]</span> 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :*:Looking at the originally listed version in 2011, I don't think that would even be sufficient. I'm not sure that version should have even been listed as was (though I am not saying it should have failed instead). That version also has a completely uncited paragraph in '''Legacy'''. Perhaps Salvidrim! can correct me if I am displaying ignorance of the rules working differently here, since he is the original nominator. ] <sup> ] </sup> 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | :*:Looking at the originally listed version in 2011, I don't think that would even be sufficient. I'm not sure that version should have even been listed as was (though I am not saying it should have failed instead). That version also has a completely uncited paragraph in '''Legacy'''. Perhaps Salvidrim! can correct me if I am displaying ignorance of the rules working differently here, since he is the original nominator. ] <sup> ] </sup> 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | ||
| :::*{{re|MFTP Dan}} It was only recently that GA required a citation after every paragraph (with some exceptions, like the lead). Articles were not "grandfathered" into this requirement, so GAs promoted before this change might require fixing up to meet this higher standard. If there was one or two minor citation concerns, I would not consider bringing an article to GAR. With this article, I thought the amount of uncited text was too much for the article to be considered GA at that time. If someone is willing to fill in the missing citations, I can re-review. ] (]) 19:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:27, 16 October 2024
Dr. Mario
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
- Result pending
The "Legacy" section is my biggest concern: the first paragraph is uncited, while the rest of the paragraphs are an assortment of appearances in other media. There are also some uncited statements in other parts of the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Note The version when it was a GAN had no uncited things. So the question is, would it be impossible to revert the article to that state and then update as necessary or would it need more major work? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's probably not very desirable to wipe out a decade's worth of edits with a wave of a wand. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the originally listed version in 2011, I don't think that would even be sufficient. I'm not sure that version should have even been listed as was (though I am not saying it should have failed instead). That version also has a completely uncited paragraph in Legacy. Perhaps Salvidrim! can correct me if I am displaying ignorance of the rules working differently here, since he is the original nominator. mftp dan 19:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- @MFTP Dan: It was only recently that GA required a citation after every paragraph (with some exceptions, like the lead). Articles were not "grandfathered" into this requirement, so GAs promoted before this change might require fixing up to meet this higher standard. If there was one or two minor citation concerns, I would not consider bringing an article to GAR. With this article, I thought the amount of uncited text was too much for the article to be considered GA at that time. If someone is willing to fill in the missing citations, I can re-review. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- It's probably not very desirable to wipe out a decade's worth of edits with a wave of a wand. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)