Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/RuneScape/1

RuneScape

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

Result: Delist. The article has a great deal of in-universe and game-play material, as well as poor prose, and citation issues. There was some disagreement as to the extent to which these are GA issues, but there is consensus that the article doesn't currently meet the criteria. Renomination would be one way to get a fresh review. Geometry guy 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is very in-universe, and reads like a game guide. It also has sections that does not relate to the rest of the article, and would greatly benefit from a cleanup. Tarret ^talk 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I disagree with the assessment that the article is too in-universe. It has a well-developed sections on "History and development" and on "Reception". Certainly there's room for expansion, but this article has more out-of-universe information than most gaming articles which land here at GAR.

That said, the article is in need of cleanup. Does anyone want to have a go at it? Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you could highlight specific aspects of the article which are due improvement, I'd try to fix them. There are others I'm sure who'd like to try. Someoneanother 14:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like most of the issues I spotted, such as capitalization and fact tags, have already been addressed. Majoreditor (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Anything else? I see a few citation needed tags and (as always) some copyediting would help... I'd be happy to do what I can. —Giggy 11:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The two remaining tags are the biggest issue; I'll see if I can copyedit the article this weekend. Majoreditor (talk) 12:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I feel that the article advertises at the moment (hence it is not neutral). Therefore, in my opinion, it does not constitute a good article. PeterA (talk) 22:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • As was asked on its talk page, how? Writing about a product is permitted. —Giggy 04:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
• Having edited this article pretty much since I joined Wikipedia 2 years ago, I would say that this article is one of the most unstable game article around here. It is so often that someone (but not the same individual) added citation needed tags, advertising-like, etc. I checked the history and found that 250 edits to the article are done in 2 months, that comes to about 4 edits per day! It's so unstable that the article was almost rewritten in just those 2 months. I have no objections or hesitations to see that it will get delisted because it is, ironically, long overdued. I even gave them a warning in December 2007 regarding how bad the article deteriorates after being promoted to GA.(see here). Sidenote: I want to point out is that this article is promoted by User:FunPika in March 10, 2007. But while we were doing GAC backlog elimination drive in July 2007, serious issues came up regarding FunPika's review skills[1][2] I want to question whether he knew and be familiar with the criteria before passing this article as GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not familiar with and don't wish to comment on the FunPika situation. What's done is done; at GAR we should only look at the current article, not rate it based on who passed it way back. Would you please give some more concrete suggestions as to what can be done to help the article maintain its GA status here; my reading of your comment is that you believe it fails the stability criterion, and that you think I (and others) should stop editing it. This is a bit oversimplified, obviously, but could you please clarify my confusion? Thanks. —Giggy 09:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The tags are still there. The article's prose still needs attention; I've copyedited several paragraphs but much more work remains. Unless someone tackles these issues shortly we should delist this article. Majoreditor (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that people should stop editing it. I'm merely pointing out its instability history. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• Delist, I would agree with the above: the article is not encyclopedic and has many related prosed issues. Geometry guy 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

  One example: "Players die when their hitpoints are reduced to zero. Hitpoints lost during battle can be recovered by eating or drinking. Players can use potions and prayers to boost their combat ability and defences. Players who die reappear at one of three respawn points with their hitpoints, and any other reduced skill levels, restored; however, they drop all but their three most valuable items. A special prayer allows the retention of one more item." Players die? Respawn? To whom should I pray? Geometry guy 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)