Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Lego City Undercover/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Lego City Undercover

edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Consensus exists to keep the GA status. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:36, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The "In other media" section of this article has lots of uncited statements. I also think the subheadings can be removed and the section organised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is the epitome of "huh?" You can literally just delete the section and fix the problem. They seem like they may be better off in Lego City anyway, the sources don't mention the game itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:44, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The singular issue stated could be fixed with one or two edits. The rest of the article seems sound to me. (EDIT: There is one uncited statement in the dev section, but this too can be removed if it can't be sourced) --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update, I've found a citation for the Nintendo easter eggs, and left an official podcast transcript about the game interviewing its staff on the main talk page. Might be useful. I used a similar very useful source for the Galidor TV series. --ProtoDrake (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as ProtoDrake has fixed it and that I don't see anymore end of paragraphs without citations (except lead and plot, which are not needed) JuniperChill (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the future, for something small like this, I would recommend just reaching out before doing a GAR. Not everything has to be done so formally, after all - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the section has been deleted, does it still cover GA criteria 3a, "it addresses the main aspects of the topic"? Or should that section be deleted from all good articles containing video games? I also added a citation needed tag, although this is a very minor concern. For those posting about reaching out, I posted on the article's talk page (which is only listed as a "consideration" on WP:GAR). If editors think the GAR process should be different, please go to WT:GA and open up a new topic. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm aware, "In other media" isn't a section that should generally exist for video games (and I'd opine that they shouldn't). From what was there of the section, the bit about Lego Dimensions is trivial and not relevant to the article, while the lego sets and books could've maybe been under the release section as part of marketing. If properly cited, the material could be moved there. λ NegativeMP1 16:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Lego_City_Undercover/1&oldid=1350244428"