Wikipedia:Featured article review/Devil May Cry (video game)/archive1: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content deleted Content added


 

Line 5: Line 5:

{{Featured article tools|1=Devil May Cry (video game)}}</noinclude>

{{Featured article tools|1=Devil May Cry (video game)}}</noinclude>

<!– Please don’t edit anything above here. Be sure to include your reasons for nominating below. –>

<!– Please don’t edit anything above here. Be sure to include your reasons for nominating below. –>

:<small>”Notified: [[User talk:Example user|Example user]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Example|Example WikiProject]], [diff for talk page notification]”</small>

:<small>”Notified: [[: | ]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject |WikiProject ]”</small>

This 2007 FA does not qualify for modern FA status standards. There are numerous and substantial issues that will take time to correct. I highlighted a few on the talk page but I’ve found many more. Among them are:

This 2007 FA does not qualify for modern FA status standards. There are numerous and substantial issues that will take time to correct. I highlighted a few on the talk page but I’ve found many more. Among them are:


Revision as of 07:05, 30 October 2025

Devil May Cry (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As of 30 October 2025, 07:08 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.

Notified: WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Video games

This 2007 FA does not qualify for modern FA status standards. There are numerous and substantial issues that will take time to correct. I highlighted a few on the talk page but I’ve found many more. Among them are:

  • The lead does not summarize the gameplay section
  • The lead does not summarize the reception section adequately
  • The gameplay section relies on one source and the last paragraph is not cited at all
  • The reception section is way too short and only comments very breifly on what reviewers found good about the game
  • Generally lacking and awkward prose in several points in the article
  • Inconsistent citation styles
  • Poor quality citations, namely Tweets

There are many more that I probably missed. I did do a little bit of work on the lead, but the problems with this article are extensive and will take a lot of time to fix that I frankly have better things to do with. ZKevinTheCat (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Exit mobile version