Talk:Geth

While the article's looking good, that large quote box is kinda messy and may verge on a copyvio. It's probably better to just summarize what's said best, as quote boxes are generally disliked in video game character articles. Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

I will update the article as soon as possible. Thank you for the suggestion. Oreun ^💬Talk 09:19, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I notice a lack of capitalization of this species' name. My first thought was to compare with other robot species, and my instinct was correct; see Cylons for instance. Is there a reason "geth" is not capitalized? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Within the Mass Effect universe, the names of species are not capitalized. Checking other articles about other alien species from that universe, they are usually written in lowercase in accordance to the game's lore. Whithin the universe terms like turian or quarian function as common nouns rather than proper nouns, trying to mirror the usage of the word "human" in real life.

I've simply followed the convention that has been established in other Mass Effect species' articles. Oreun ^💬Talk 09:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• ... that the architectural design of the geth-controlled quarian home world in Mass Effect 3 was inspired by London's Lloyd's building?

• • ALT1: ... that some geth spacecraft in the Mass Effect universe feature protruding arms designed to mimic a fly rubbing its legs together? Source: The Art of the Mass Effect Trilogy: Expanded edition. ISBN: 9781506721637 p.56
  • ALT2: ... that the fictional robotic species geth from Mass Effect function as a network of programs that become more intelligent as more units are linked together? Source: de Groot, Dries (July 28, 2016). "The Robot, the Alien and the Woman: The Representation of "Otherness" in the Mass Effect Trilogy" https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/server/api/core/bitstreams/6ae03683-ec76-48dc-8815-0a3de87010f9/content
  • ALT3: ... that the name of the fictional robotic species geth from Mass Effect literally means "servant of the people" in the language of their creators? Source: de Groot, Dries (July 28, 2016). "The Robot, the Alien and the Woman: The Representation of "Otherness" in the Mass Effect Trilogy" https://theses.ubn.ru.nl/server/api/core/bitstreams/6ae03683-ec76-48dc-8815-0a3de87010f9/content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oreun (talk • contribs) 14:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: If the first hook is chosen, it may also be a good idea to nominate the quarian article as well, as the fact is discussed there too.

Oreun ^💬Talk 14:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC).

Nominator: Oreun (talk · contribs) 13:47, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geth/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: RadioactOlive (talk · contribs) 02:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for submitting the article; getting started on the review.radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 02:17, 8 April 2026 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   The article seems to be written primarily from an in-universe perspective, which is in violation of WP:WAF#Real-world perspective. Specifically, the Attributes and Types section are entirely in universe, as is some of the lead. There is a lot of this, and it seems to be fairly long way from fixing this, and so I am going to quick fail this one. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 02:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   The article has pretty major real-world perspective issues that would need to be fixed before a renomination. The reception and analysis section also seems to go perhaps a bit deeper in depth then is necessary; there's no need to summarize every single analysis anyone has ever made of the species. radioactOlive_(she/it)(talk) 02:45, 8 April 2026 (UTC)