Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE/1

Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE edit

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) · WatchWatch article reassessment pageMost recent review
Result: Speedily kept. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible spelling errors, the development section might not be detailed enough for this type of article. reassesment in response to sandy georgia requesting a GAR. --Therealgamer1234 (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Just checking, did you actually suggest this? --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a GAR request for someone to check, as I am not that familiar with GA standards, and I wondered if the article had been damaged during the socking shenanigans. If you, as the principle editor, feel it is still good, that's good with me! I didn't think the GAR request would be acted on without someone eyeballing it first, considering the SPI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, nominated by blocked user, perhaps as some kind of WP:POINT. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Axem. I haven't taken a very thorough look at the article, but it appears good enough to be a video game GA. ProtoDrake does a good job making GAs, and it looks to be up to standard. The Night Watch (talk) 05:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.