Talk:Doomfist: Difference between revisions – Wikipedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 10:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   “whose design is based on a powerful, cybernetic gauntlet” – this doesn’t read right to me. Would it be better to say his weaponry is based on a gauntlet?

   The design is based on a gauntlet because the gauntlet spawned the rest of the design. Sure, his primary in-game use is the gauntlet too, but the gauntlet was designed before the character, and thus his lore and in-game use are based around that feature even more so than other series characters are based around a singular feature. ♔

   “mostly close-range attacks: a charged punch, uppercut, and slam” – I think this would read better if you dropped the semi colon and said “including a charged punch, uppercut…” The message I’m taking from that current wording is that the character is only capable of those three attacks. (I haven’t played this game before).

   The colon? Should be fine as indicating a list of close-range attacks, no? ♔

   “(crowd-control from Zarya, Mei, or Reinhardt)” – you’ve lost me here. Perhaps say “such as the crowd-control moves from Zarya, Mei or Reinhardt”, assuming that’s what this means. Can you wikilink to any of those characters? Again I can only assume that’s what they are.

   Yep. I tried to reduce the amount of character jargon wherever possible (ideally, a general audience could read this without getting caught on character names) ♔

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Citations 24 and 26 are missing retrieval dates.

   Thanks (I personally hide these on my browser) ♔

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Well done overall. Looking forward to passing this once minor issues have been addressed. While its not a requirement for GA, I do strongly recommend you archive your sources. It’s only a matter of time before the links start rotting. Don’t feel obligated, but I have a peer review I’m looking for comments at if you’re interested. Freikorp (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for the review, @Freikorp! Addressed the above czar 03:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

   Looking good. Happy for this to pass now. Freikorp (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] @Kung Fu Man, you should feel free to touch it as much as you’d like! It especially needs updating with his Overwatch 2 rework. czar 20:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kung Fu Man and Czar: Is there still interest in fixing up this article? Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]