Former good articleMona Sax was one of the Video games good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 20, 2023Good article reassessmentKept
June 16, 2023Articles for deletionKept
July 7, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

B assessment

[edit]

Can anymore be added to this page? Can the lead be expanded some? --JDC808 16:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty much complete, at least as far as the currently available online sources go (it's a character from almost 10 years ago). It could be expanded, but I think it would be like trying too hard. --Niemti (talk) 23:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 22:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm reviewing this article. My practice is to check articles against the GA criteria, then if necessary, I make suggestions for improving text below. Also know that I'm not a gamer by any means, so please excuse my ignorance if and/or when I ask stupid questions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I see a great deal of issues with the prose in my first read-through, almost enough to quick-fail it for this alone. I recommend that you get this article copy-edited. It's often my practice to do it myself, since I find that it's easier and a better use of everyone's time to correct grammar errors myself rather than write out requests for you to fix, with accompanied extensive edit summaries.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    I have a few questions/issues with the refs in this article, which I'll go into more detail below. Most of my issues will be resolved after you address them and answer my questions.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I will AGF that this article is as comprehensive as possible, and that although it's short, it includes all that's out there about the subject. Seems mostly focused; perhaps addressing the prose issues will make it more so.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Seems stable, with one main editor making most of the contributions to this article.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Just two images, but they seem to fulfill the free-use requirements. I wonder if you could add one more of Kunis, to illustrate the quotes about her appearance and how they thought she didn't fit the character.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    See below for issues that need to be addressed before I pass it.


I'll have some time over the weekend to work some more on this review. Stay tuned! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also prefer if you did the copy-edit yourself, because English is just not my first language :) --Niemti (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and other issues

In games

Lisa was abused (Max finds her beaten to death, actually).[1] She disappears literally. She was shot in the head at point blank, but returns in the sequel: [2] --Niemti (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I think the copy-edit I made should stand. Ah, it seems that games are like soaps in that people die more than once and if there isn't a body, don't believe the character is really dead. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Character Design

Reception

Sources

Lem is Vladimir Lem from the previous sentence (in-game he is refered to as "Vlad", not "Lem"). [3] Mona's uncanonical survival/resurrection (and Vlad's death) looks like that: [4]. (Canonic plot in 60 s: [5].) "Valkyr drug" is a fictional drug from the first game and in a different form in the film [6] (its mystery is explained in the plot sections of their articles, it's a pretty complicated conspiracy). Yes, it's a coda scene. It's just a (very) popular misconception that citations need to be "perfected in any way ("Perfectly formatted citations are not required."). UGO is (was) actually a general entertainment website. --Niemti (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try to address your responses and look more closely at the refs tomorrow. If not, definitely by Tues. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know I really meant Thurs. (well, for me it's still Wed.), right? Sorry, it's kinda been a busy week. Thanks for your clarifications, and sorry for the oversights. I don't think we need to go into any detail about the deaths and the drug conspiracy, since they're plot points. I was honestly unaware of the easier requirement for citations in GAs, so I'm okay with them as is. See, I review GACs with the mindset that eventually they're go to FAC, so many of my suggestions are in light of that. At FAC, you'd have to make the format consistent, so if you're able to expand it to the point that you're nominate it there, I recommend that you think about making the refs consistent. I get you about UGO, but there are better sources; again, not something I expect at this level, but I don't think it would be acceptable at FAC. Now I'll look at the sources, finally.

Sources (part 2)

Ok, that's it, it was fun to work on a new topic. I'll put this on hold for a week to give you time to address my issues, and then I'll pass it. Good luck. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's "a Hollywood model" exactly, but it seems a legit thing, possibly Hollywood Model Management (but that's my guess).[8] Are you sure coma goes after a quotation? It's like that in Polish, but in America I see "words," "words." all the time. Rockstar is the publisher's website (Rockstar Games), Xbox.com is also official (Microsoft's). The link is straight to the comic and it's free. The interview was undated. I was actually concernd about it because it's just a fan site.[9] I personally don't doubt it, but that's what it is. --Niemti (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the WP policy about punctuation inside quotations: MOS:LQ. I'm satisfied with how you addressed my concerns. I'll go pass this article now. Congrats! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mona Sax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore)) after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot)) to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Mona Sax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mona Sax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mona Sax. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues to fix for GAR soon

[edit]

Tagging the authors and/or possibly interested editors, SNAAAAKE!!, Barry Sandwich, Damien Linnane, Kung Fu Man and Cukie Gherkin. The article contains a lot of issues. It has zero development/concept and design section, a lot of the claims were unsourced at the appearances section, the portrayal is a bit flimsy and probably could be merged at development section and the major issues are at the reception section where it might probably take time to rewrite and then implement all the sources from its talk page. I am only doing this for a GAR purpose so people wouldn't call the nomination as "rush" and criticize it. Only interested editors shall participate as usual. The article will be nominated as GAR soon. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 01:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While SNAAAAKE!! is by far the top editor (184 edits; the next top contributor by edit count only has 12), he has been permanently banned from editing. And if he wasn't, pinging him to a discussion would likely result in nobody else being willing to help; he was banned partially because of how toxic he was towards any user who disagreed with him over anything imaginable.
I only edited this article for the first time last week. It definitely does not currently deserve its GA status. I'm happy to continue to make some moderate improvements as time permits, but I won't be taking this on as a major project myself. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:48, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]