Talk:Drill Dozer/GA1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GA review
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Cukie Gherkin (talk · contribs) 03:53, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 21:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Reviewing. Passes the quick fail check.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 21:21, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
- a (reference section):
b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- 3rd sentence from the end of paragraph 1 of "Gameplay" has a cite needed tag.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Just needs that one citation issue cleared up.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 21:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- @3family6: Hey, I appreciate the review, and not to show a lack of appreciation for having done so, but I do feel like the review wasn't thorough enough. I mean, maybe I just did that good a job on the article, but for instance, I do have concerns that a proper spotcheck wasn't performed (and if it was, that evidence of a spotcheck wasn't demonstrated). I've had it where people questioned the result of a GAN based on the review not being adequately thorough. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Cukie Gherkin I did do one, but didn't mention it. No worries, that's a fair and valid concern. Yes, I did spotcheck through sources as part of the citation check.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Can you list the sources you checked? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also, the CN tag has been addressed Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- I'm going to run through it again, anyway, since some changes were made after my review--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:47, 3 February 2026 (UTC)
- Can you list the sources you checked? Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @Cukie Gherkin I did do one, but didn't mention it. No worries, that's a fair and valid concern. Yes, I did spotcheck through sources as part of the citation check.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- @3family6: Hey, I appreciate the review, and not to show a lack of appreciation for having done so, but I do feel like the review wasn't thorough enough. I mean, maybe I just did that good a job on the article, but for instance, I do have concerns that a proper spotcheck wasn't performed (and if it was, that evidence of a spotcheck wasn't demonstrated). I've had it where people questioned the result of a GAN based on the review not being adequately thorough. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
- Just needs that one citation issue cleared up.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 21:36, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
I went through and spotchecked all the sources I could access. The article is now ready for GA status.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:00, 3 February 2026 (UTC)