Talk:Ezio Auditore da Firenze/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 16:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The article features multiple typographical and grammatical errors. It also features redundancies in text. For example, the Development section mentions his relative lack of experience in two separate instances despite that information already been made apparent to the reader earlier.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Upon doing a copyvio check, the program I used came back with a copyvio certainty of >90%. Further examination lead me to discover that much of the plot section is plagiarized from another source, with minor changes added. Also has a dead link and unsourced passages. Whoops. Super my bad, I wasn't thorough.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Plot prose is quite long, and could perhaps stand to be fixed. The Reception section I feel is lacking quite a bit and needs further expanding.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   In the Development section, the text refers to progression trees as stale without indicating that this is the opinion of the designer. I also noticed multiple seemingly unsourced claims that Ezio's outfit is 'signature'.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Seems fine.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image lacks a proper source and doesn't explain why it cannot be replaced by a free use image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   When I noticed the copyvios, I was at first debating whether to put it on hold so that can be addressed. However, that in combination with all of the other issues - as well as a reception section that, I think, relies too heavily on reception that lacks much substance and all of the other problems in the article, I feel this should be failed and brought back to GAN once the issues have been ironed out. Looking at it and fixing my own glaring error, the plot section seems acceptable, though I do not personally know if it may be overwrought or not. Other issues still apply however. I'm giving it another week for improvements. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

You got me confused now @User:Abryn, did it fail or is it on hold? It is shown to me as a failed nomination. As for the points addressed:

• I was always very unsatisfied with the development section and was hoping someone could point out some points to improve.
• the plot section has already been trimmed down quite a bit (3 AAA titles, a DS game and a film have to be fitted) but I can try to get it a bit shorter.
• I will look to expand the reception section, though many sources you find on the internet are considered unreliable by Wikipedia. Scholary reception could be an option though.
• I will adress typos and problematic passages asap.

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article!DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I failed it because I had a really sloppy misunderstanding of something. It was super mb. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 20:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Don‘t worry, that can always happen! Is there a way to reverse the fail or to get around the problem?DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess we can ask an admin. @Sergecross73: help I'm bad - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you asking because you don’t know how to fix it, or if you don’t know if it’s within protocol? If you can fix it, I’d say go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 21:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely within protocol for a reviewer to reverse a mistaken closure and reopen their review. I have fixed the GA nominee template on the article's talk page, so this is back in business. It is currently "on hold", since that's the status that Bryn gave it when they tried to resume the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Improvement requests

• Have removed all allusions to signature outfits etc.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• Have reworded the development section to avoid redundancies and neutrality issues.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• I have condensed the plot section further. As mentioned above, it has to fill 3 games with 40+ hours of story, a ds title and a short film, so I think shortening it further will be difficult.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
• I could not find a free image of Ezio, as the original file states, but I have tried to make that more apparent in the description.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I will try to enlarge the reception and legacy section next. However, most articles on the topic not included yet come from whatculture etc., so this will be a challenge. I could try to look into scholary reception though.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Have expanded the section by adding his reception upon release, as scholary reception of him as a character is quite sparse.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The reception looks to be improved. I'm a little busy with life/other Wikipedia stuff, but I'll make sure to give it a super thorough looksie before any closure of the GA occurs. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

No worries, take your time. If you find anything else you want me to work on, let me know!--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The flu is the worst thing ever. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 16:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Get well soon!DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

The reception section has seen much improvement. Nice job. I fixed up a few things, and noticed a couple issues. John Davidson's comments are likened to VanOrd's, but the two don't appear to say similar things. And with such little reception on his role in Revelations, it might behoove you to group VanOrd's comments in one place. You should also try to use less samey words; for instance, in two successive sentences, you start with "Like [pronoun]". If that can be avoided, it's recommended. Overall though, the issues that remain are surmountable, and ones I'd just as well rather help tweak rather than point out. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 08:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to regroup the statements and avoid redundancies.--DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)