Talk:Covenant (Halo)/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Unfortunately the article does not meet the GA criteria. With a cleanup banner at the top of the article and 19 citation needed tags, it cannot remain a GA unless these issues are remedied. (H/t to ‎45.119.84.59 who brought this issue to my attention). (t · c) buidhe 01:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with demoting the article. It can be temporary until someone figures out a way to address the issues. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The outstanding citation tags make it unsuitable to be a GA; ping me if this is fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:14, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Buidhe it would be helpful if you observed the actual procedures for GAR and notified major contributors when starting a GAR. I only noticed this GAR through WP:VG it's obnoxious to only find out via that. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:16, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, Shooter, Piotrus, and David Fuchs: How is this going. It looks like work has gone into fixing the issues. Aircorn (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Citations have been added, but in all honesty I have major concerns regarding the notability of this topic. Ping few people for sanity check before this ends up at AfD: @Jclemens, Daranios, Rorshacma, TTN, and Avilich:. Even if it does go to AfD the reception section needs a major beefing up if we don't want this stuck with {{Notability}} - which would make it ineligible for GA status anyway... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an AFD would succeed for notability concerns, since there are a couple of decent sources that I think would at least allow the subject to pass the bare minimum of the WP:GNG. But, I agree that the "Reception" section is pretty terrible to the point of its inclusion being actually detrimental to the quality of the article. It really misrepresents how much coverage there actually is in the cited sources, as these are mostly just reviews of the games that just very briefly mention the Covenant as part of the overall discussion of the game. One of these (the Edge review) never even mentions them by name, simply calling them "enemies", and the article on the Guiness ranking has absolutely no information on them, simply listing their name in a list. Rorshacma (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, listing the sources would make things easier for me as I improve the section. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, but I am not a content expert on first person shooters in general, and have no particular expertise in sourcing. In general, I oppose any AfD on a good or featured article, since the community has already reviewed it at least once, it deserves the chance to remove that imprimatur, and THEN an XfD can be held if it does remove the designation. I've heard arguments that something can pass GA and still be deleted at XfD, but I've never heard one that I found even somewhat compelling. Jclemens (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notability and quality are two separate issues as you can write a high quality article on a non-notable subject. Notability is not reviewed as part of a GAN and Good Articles have been deleted at AFD with no issue regarding their GA status. So if you think it is non-notable this is not a barrier. Aircorn (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens Take a look at Talk:Halo Array, a GA that is right now 100% plotcruft with zero reception/significance... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus, it is interesting to look at the history behind how that article was assessed as a GA in the first place. Haleth (talk) 00:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was brought to my attention too. Maybe some of these peripheral articles should be merged together. Aircorn (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From a search for sources, I found some that prove the Covenant's notability beyond a doubt.
Full article explaining all Covenant races from a reliable source

"The Sacred & the Digital: Critical Depictions of Religions in Video Games" page 165 - Cites the Covenant as a clear reference to Christianity and gives examples of how their name relates to it

"Reframing 9/11 - Film, Popular Culture and the "War on Terror"" page 100 - Cites the Covenant invading Earth in Halo 2 as an intentional parallel for America invading the Middle East.

That alone is definite proof even though there are certainly more out there. So the issue is not notability but really poor sourcing used in the article. It should probably be demoted back to C-class and undergo GAR again after it is rewritten/incorporates these sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Factions of Halo and demote if not. The sourcing only has depth on in-universe context and does not cover the independent, external notability of the topic. Honestly all of the recurring factions should be upmerged to Halo (series) and then split out to something like the dedicated Factions article when warranted by summary style overgrowth. Per Piotr and Aircorn above, this question of notability is assessed independently from the quality assessment criteria. Even considering Zxcvbnm's sources above, I don't see the depth to support a dedicated article witout delving into in-universe trivia, which is the state of the current article. I'd suggest taking a stab at merging this content where it already belongs in summary style and only then evaluating what a dedicated article provides that isn't already covered in the merged section. The merge discussion should happen on the talk page (and notify WT:VG), not in this GAR. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 18:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: -- done. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:49, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]