Talk:2b2t

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

Result: Kept. Clear consensus that concerns have been addressed. czar 08:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

There is the "context" template at the top of the article, saying that it provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. So, I believe that the article now fails the GA criteria. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

• Also, the reviewer, No Great Shaker, was blocked. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment. It appears NGS performed a good-faith and normal review. His block was not due to incompetence but rather sockpuppetry, which is unlikely to impact the quality of a GAN review he did. So I'm not convinced that this particular complaint is a problem. SnowFire (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• I think sufficient context is provided, and some edits have been made to the lede since then. I think the maintenance template can be removed. "2b2t is a Minecraft server" is as simple as it gets, with the link to Minecraft server. If someone doesn't know what Minecraft is, or what a multiplayer game server is, they can and should simply click the links. Specific terms like "griefing" and "hacking" now have explanations in footnotes or parentheticals. @Trivialist: Are there further concerns about insufficient context? Leijurv (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
• Comment - Gave the article a skim, and maybe my two cents isn't worth much, but I honestly probably wouldn't pass a GAN that uses so much direct quotation. It's kind of jarring to read; is there any reason these couldn't be paraphrased in prose, especially the two quote blocks down in Reception? ~Bluecrystal004 ^{(talk · contribs)} 01:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
• Keep - Going off of @Bluecrystal004's comment, I would say that the main "issue" with the article is the block quotes, which could probably be broken up or paraphrased for a smoother reading. Otherwise, after skimming through the article, I think it does a pretty good job at explaining such a niche corner of gaming culture. Johnson524 (Talk!) 03:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep per Johnson524. SMBMovieFan (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

This user was blocked as a sockpuppet. See WP:STRIKESOCK. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 01:08, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

So? The user was on Wikipedia for 8 years according to his profile before he got blocked, just because the user got blocked, doesn't mean the article is bad. TomMasterReal^TALK 00:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@TomMasterReal I think you may be confused. SMBMovieFan has been blocked a sock of TzarN64. Pizzaplayer has struck SMBMovieFan's comment, because as a sockpuppet of a blocked user, SMB has no right to contribute to any community discussion. Pizzaplayer is not making any comment on the quality of the article. TzarN64 only started contributing in 2022, so I'm not sure where you get the impression that they were an 8-year contributor prior to being blocked for socking. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That's my fault, I thought you guys were talking about the person who got the article to be a GA. The guy who got 2b2t to be a GA was on Wikipedia for 8 years before he got blocked. Sorry about that. TomMasterReal^TALK 17:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Not to be super pedantic, but No Great Shaker was just the reviewer. Leijurv is the one who did the work to get the article to GA, and they're still around and in good standing. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, but I must defer to Melofors who did way more work than me on improving 2b2t to GA. :) Leijurv (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Wandering in here as I'm toddling through the old community GARs. I rewrote the lead a bit, mostly reordering things a bit and incorporating the content that was in the efns into the prose. I intend to start paraphrasing the block quotes into prose next. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Right - blockquotes have now been integrated and/or removed. The earlier two were easier to integrate, while the latter two were removed almost wholesale as they added little to the article that a paraphrase could not. I'm now satisfied that it should be kept as a GA (although I don't love the logo section, especially as it has CN tag). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  I've decided to boldly removed the logo section. It was not present when the article passed GA and was only added in December last year. Steelkamp (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. Original nominator's concerns have been addressed adequately by Leijurv. The problem with excessive use of quotes has been fixed. The uncited logo section has been removed. There are no other apparent problems with the article. Steelkamp (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)