Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wii U GamePad/1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: WP:IAR/WP:SNOW Consensus is to delist due to a defective review. I see no reason why this should stay open longer. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:40, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this article for GAR due to poorly reviewed during GAN, clunky prose, and multiple failed verifications.

Using this version [1]

• Ref 2:Business Week is not reliable
• Ref 3: Multiple failed verification, such as Miyamoto, the development had no information, notification light. 2nd use: Failed verification. No mention of "asymmetric gaming".
• Ref 4 and 5: Both failed verification. No mention of "Supplemental display" and "inspired" stuff, just a similar.
• Ref 6:"Gyroscopic capabilities were added by the team specifically to aid in aiming for first and third person shooter games" Failed verification
• Ref 7:Primary source needs replacement
• Ref 8:Multiple failed verification
• Wtf is "leaked changes"?????
• "The Wii U GamePad was only sold separately in Japan, costing ¥13,284 (USD$108).[9] It released online on November 24, 2015.[10][11] In 2013, hackers reverse engineered the Wii U GamePad, connecting it to a computer playing an emulated version of The Legend Of Zelda: The Wind Waker." Pls update this. We are from 2025 already
• Ref 14: Whole claim is unverified. This is a lie or the author just placed reliable source to game the system
• Ref 15:"a television isn't required to be connected to the Wii U; the Wii U can operate in Off-TV Play mode as long as the console is connected to a power source" Failed verification.
• ref 16: failed verification. No mention of words such as "transmitt" or "transmitting", including "Gamepad".
• Cubed3 is unreliable, leaving "Not all games support Off-TV Play, as some games conceptually rely on the asymmetric interplay between the television screen and the Wii U GamePad screen, such as Nintendo Land and ZombiU" paragraph as unverified. The next supporting source is Dead.
• ref 19: Failed verification. No mention of Nintendo Eshop or off-tv play.
• ref 20: "Original Wii games and Wii Virtual Console games were not initially compatible either, although this was changed in the Wii U's September 30, 2013 system update, which allows it, but only through the use of original Wii peripherals as input methods, meaning that the image would appear on Wii U GamePad screen, but its buttons would not work, requiring the use of Wii Remotes and Wii accessories for button and joystick input." IGN has a very shot article, where did all this info came from? Failed verification.
• ref 21: "This was partially revised again in January 2015", and words such as "rework", "Off-tv play" has no mention. Failed verification
• ref 23 needs a source replacement
• ref 24 needs a source replacement
• I did not do a spotchecks at the reception section.
• Prose doesn't look good imo. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you don't really need a ref for the ref 14? To prove that, you just need a WIi U. I'll source replace the other unreliable refs, some of the information was taken from off-tv play when i was merging the content. Also, the prose is just your personal opinion- nothing concrete. You just want to take this GA from me. TzarN64 (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I only reviewed around 28% of sources, and I believed that that was more than enough to review. The delist request, however, must be more WP:CIVIL and grammar must be extensively corrected in the reassessment as the delister may not be good at English. I could have reviewed more sources, but some sources that the request stated per above was not needed to be updated, as the Wii U GamePad was not released in 2025. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 18:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being a native English speaker isn't required to do spotchecks. What's funny is that a non-native speaker knows how to conduct a proper spotchecks than you. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said being fluent at en is required, I just said that the reassessment needs to be more WP:CIVIL and that grammar must be corrected. There is no biting in this serious situation. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 19:21, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I've already talked to Freedoxm, and they've been good about understanding and stepping back from the reviews, so I don't think that will need to be addressed further, all that's left it to take care of previously done ones, which is basically this GA I think. Sergecross73 msg me 20:19, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You only reviewed a fourth of the sources? That is not through at all. GamerPro64 20:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Especially on such a short article. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 20:10, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I only reviewed 28% of them per WP:GAN/I#R3. It says to review only a sample of all citations. Additionally, right after I completed the review, @Panini said that I only needed to pick out 25-33% of sources here. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per concerns above. I have the additional complaint that I don't particularly think the image in the reception makes any sense, as a visual of the battery doesn't help the reader understand the unrelated criticisms of the battery. That's an easy fix, but its yet another one to add on an already long list of needed improvements. Sergecross73 msg me 18:46, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't agree with some of the points BP raised:

• BusinessWeek seems like a decent enough source for something like this
• Primary sources are fine to incorporate, especially in subjects like this (is Nintendo going to lie about what their prototype l, but they can't be the meat of the article.
• A third of sources is pretty typical for a GA review.

But I agree the prose is clunky; it seems a bit over-reliant on quotes. Most importantly, it seems to be missing sources: I find it quite unlikely that there is not more retrospective coverage on the Wii U from more recently. Also, some sources are poorly formatted and missing dates. I would support delisting if no work is done to fix it up, but it shouldn't be too hard. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 05:53, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. (restoring my previous comments after they were reverted). I came here after seeing this mentioned at WT:DYK. I haven't done a deep dive but I've already spotted a few problems.
  • There is information in the lead which is not mentioned in the article or cited, i.e. most of the 2nd paragraph, i.e. no mention of 2009, Wii Remote Plus, Nunchuk, or Wii Balance Board.
  • There is information in the infobox which is neither mentioned in the article nor cited, i.e. details about the camera, battery, size, weight, etc.
  • Statements likeCritics noted the similarities to the newly-released iPad at the time.[13] belong in the article body, not in an image caption per MOS:CAPSUCCINCT (although, it's not clear that WP:GACR actually requires that).
  • This by itself isn't enough to disqualify the ariticle, but it's just what I found on a quick scan. In combination with the items found by other reviewers above, I think this need to be delisted as a defective review. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist as the original review was clearly defective. It's not unheard of for GARs to close within a month in that circumstance (see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Transgender health care misinformation/1) and this should equally close early.--Launchballer 16:44, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, if we haven't hit WP:SNOW territory yet, we're certainly on our way... Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist - Agree with the concerns about the original GAN's defectiveness and sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]