Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Left 4 Dead/1

Left 4 Dead edit

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

Result: Delisted - This GAR has been up for only about 8 days, but there is a very clear consensus that the article fails on criteria 2, probably fails on 6a, and the prose arguably needs improvement. Including the nominator, there are 4 votes to delist and none to keep. Aaron north (T/C) 02:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sections have problem templates such as the "Plot" section which does have any references which goes one of the main points of a GA. As I am not to active with GA's I was hoping someone could reassess this article to see if their were any other issues with it and it it should be demoted. Peter.C • talk 10:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, and this could be very difficult to fix before this GAR closes. The article clearly fails on criteria 2 with the large amount of unsourced content, and the out-of-date section (after release). I believe it also possibly fails on 6a, I am skeptical about the need for the non-free image "Left 4 Dead Director Intensity.jpg". Finally, this may sound odd for a 5,800 word article with 130 cites, but this article has a severe problem with sources. The article extensively cites the director's commentary on the software; every single citation from "Valve Corporation" is a primary source. WP:PRIMARY Primary sources can be used carefully when needed for simple data, but not for analysis. There is a lot of primary content used to describe the creation of the game, design philosophy, etc. Interviews and articles written in independent game reviewing magazines and respected news sites should have been used for that. The article cites one or more blogs (LFDblog for sure. Is kotaku a blog as well? if there are others I didn't notice). The use of a blog as a source is strongly discouraged. Aside from that, the article is rather long so I only sampled a few sections, but the article seems to be reasonably well written and appears to be NPOV. Aaron north (T/C) 00:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist overuse of non-free images and maintenance tags are the first two things that immediately come to mind. The images File:L4d filmic.jpg and File:L4DP.JPG are unnecessary. Additionally dead links should be fixed if possible, several references need updating to {{Cite web}} and in general the reference format is a mess, with publishers italicized that should not be, and multiple publishers written incorrectly (i.e. "Game Trailers" and not "GameTrailers"). The article could also use some copy editing and merging of one sentence paragraphs. --Teancum (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist: Un-addressed maintenance templates, including dead links dated June 2009, a large number of uncited statements, over-use of non-free images, poor prose, stray sentences. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]