Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Result: Unanimous consensus to delist as GA Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely sure how this article even got to GA in the condition it's in: while there's potential for a good article here, there's more than a few citation-needed tags and many small, choppy paragraphs. A lack of reception section is a bit troubling too, given this is one of the more iconic characters. To top it off at a glance a few sections feel like original research is present.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I don't know why it wouldn't have a reception section, either. Even if no articles on the actual character are available, reviews on the franchise or games almost always contain the reviewer's view on the character. As it is, I think the article needs drastic work and should be demoted until improvement can be made. After that, it could be put through another GAR. The article is probably at about C-Class currently, maybe B-Class. While it certainly is long, most of it is unreferenced in-universe information. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for the following reasons:
- Non-free images need better rationales. Would not meet 6(a).
- Significant lack of reliable sourcing. Nearly all the sources are unreliable, with over half the content in the article being completely unsourced. What is particularly damning is the presence of cleanup tags and ((fact)) tags—a GA no-no. Would not meet any part of criterion 2.
- Significant MoS/prose issues. A quick skim of the article shows a lot a weasel words and peacockery, not to mention quite a bit of words to avoid. Other MoS issues include inconsistencies with italics and overlinking. Would not meet either part of criterion 1.
- Significant recent instability. Would not meet criterion 5.
- MuZemike 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]