Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Mario Kart Wii/1

Mario Kart Wii

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) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 11:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly reviewed article + Zero spot checks + The prose doesn't read good, especially the reception section. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - @SleepyRedHair clearly saw the request by another user telling them to spotcheck, and they ignored it. Therefore, I am supporting a delist of this article from GA status. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 20:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did not ignore the spotcheck request, I thought that's what that was. I checked the GA review instructions but it never clarified what a spotcheck is exactly, so I assumed that it meant "choose a sample of sources and check if it matches the attached text and no copyrighted material is used". SleepyRedHair (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that a spot check was not performed. Either way, I feel that the article is not GA ready, as demonstrated by it being approved with a USERGEN source Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cukie Gherkin~~ (wrong person) SleepyRedHair, you did not specify the sources in the review. Tzar just happened to know which one it was and removed it. Additionally, I pointed to the appropriate page (WP:GAN/I#R3), which gives instructions on how to do a spotcheck. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 12:13, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be specific, I removed it; there was a dispute over the source (TV.com's) removal by Tzar. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cukie Gherkin, I pinged you by accident. Please ignore my reply. — 🌙Eclipse (she/they/all neos • talk • edits) 12:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - some questionable sources and definitely needs a lot of rewriting l ke (talk • contribs) 00:04, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - disappointing to see the nominator mention on the talk page that "copyediting wasn't that necessary", because I see a lot of clunky prose and lack of flow between ideas. Copyediting was wrongfully skipped over in this nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noting that the nominator has been banned so they cannot address any improvements. Any objections to an WP:IAR/WP:SNOW close once a day or two pass? Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be reasonable Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2025 (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.