Wikipedia talk:Peer review/2b2t/archive1

Comments moved from main page:

I'm just only commenting here, but it's unusual that this is the first anyone's attempting to get a Minecraft server article to GA status. Let me imitate FitMC here: "Did you know that a Wikipedia article about the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft is about to become a good article?!" I wonder if this article needs a "Gameplay" section, since people talk about how the 2b2t server is played, and I also wonder another thing... The article has a "Renders" section, but I wish there's a lot of text outside of the image captions. -ias postb□x+ 13:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're planning a "Culture" section for this article, okay, perhaps we don't need a "Gameplay" section then, and we also don't need the lot of text outside of the image captions in the "Renders" section. Just found out from the article talk page. -ias postb□x+ 14:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I AM NOT PEER REVIEWING THIS ARTICLE. -ias postb□x+ 15:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: Yep, the Culture section is pretty much what you described. Gameplay is definitely an interesting and I might change the name to that if needed. Just wondering, why do you find it unusual I'm trying to get this article to GA? — Melofors T C 19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one took an article about a Minecraft server to GA status before, and because no one took an article about an anarchy server to GA status before. -ias postb□x+ 07:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I'm not surprised. Minecraft servers are relatively new to the block on Wikipedia. There are four servers with articles currently, the oldest created in late 2018. Not many servers are notable anyways and don't have enough coverage to be a GA. Hypixel and now 2b2t would probably be the only ones that could be a GA. 2b2t being a GA would never have even crossed my mind, but looking at how big it's gotten, I think it definitely has a chance now. — Melofors T C 21:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean quite frankly many, many peer reviewed articles are not part of a certain category? It seems a bit weird to say that no Minecraft server has ever become a GA, because neither have many other articles of similar types that have been peer reviewed. A GA would be ambitious, but there does seem to be potential for this article. Full caps comments like I AM NOT PEER REVIEWING THIS ARTICLE. aren't really contributing anything either. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 19:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Berrely said here. I didn't intend to contribute anything to this peer review, though I see the possiblity of turning this 2b2t article into a GA as likely. -ias postb□x+ 20:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, my dude specifically said I'm just only commenting here. — Melofors T C 11:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now this is good enough to be a GAN. Have fun with the process! -ias postb□x+ 20:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And have fun with Chaos Field! — Melofors T C 20:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and it's so anticipated! «=-ias postb□x+=» 20:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@I'm Aya Syameimaru!: @Berrely: Yeah, right? Also, I think this isn't getting peer reviewed because people see all of these comments and assume it's already been reviewed. Would you both be okay with clearing all these comments so we can get an actual review? — Melofors T C 21:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with it, I'm moving comments to the talk page. «=-ias postb□x+=» 23:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved. «=-ias postb□x+=» 23:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]