Talk:Doomfist

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 10:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   "whose design is based on a powerful, cybernetic gauntlet" - this doesn't read right to me. Would it be better to say his weaponry is based on a gauntlet?

   The design is based on a gauntlet because the gauntlet spawned the rest of the design. Sure, his primary in-game use is the gauntlet too, but the gauntlet was designed before the character, and thus his lore and in-game use are based around that feature even more so than other series characters are based around a singular feature. ♔

   "mostly close-range attacks: a charged punch, uppercut, and slam" - I think this would read better if you dropped the semi colon and said "including a charged punch, uppercut..." The message I'm taking from that current wording is that the character is only capable of those three attacks. (I haven't played this game before).

   The colon? Should be fine as indicating a list of close-range attacks, no? ♔

   "(crowd-control from Zarya, Mei, or Reinhardt)" - you've lost me here. Perhaps say "such as the crowd-control moves from Zarya, Mei or Reinhardt", assuming that's what this means. Can you wikilink to any of those characters? Again I can only assume that's what they are.

   Yep. I tried to reduce the amount of character jargon wherever possible (ideally, a general audience could read this without getting caught on character names) ♔

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Citations 24 and 26 are missing retrieval dates.

   Thanks (I personally hide these on my browser) ♔

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Well done overall. Looking forward to passing this once minor issues have been addressed. While its not a requirement for GA, I do strongly recommend you archive your sources. It's only a matter of time before the links start rotting. Don't feel obligated, but I have a peer review I'm looking for comments at if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

   Thanks for the review, @Freikorp! Addressed the above czar 03:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

   Looking good. Happy for this to pass now. Freikorp (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Updates

@Kung Fu Man, you should feel free to touch it as much as you'd like! It especially needs updating with his Overwatch 2 rework. czar 20:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

• Following up with this: is the "update needed" banner at the top of the article still valid, or should it be removed? @Czar:, who brought this to GA status in 2017. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

  Still valid, needing updates from changes in Overwatch 2 czar 03:36, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

• @Czar: I see that the update needed banner is still in the article. Is the banner still valid? Should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

  @Kung Fu Man is working through the Overwatch character articles. Would you have time for this one? czar 03:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Czar: I won't bring an article to GAR if someone is interested in making improvements. Z1720 (talk) 04:16, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Kung Fu Man and Czar: Is there still interest in fixing up this article? Of course, there is no obligation to do so. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

• I'm on a bit of a hiatus at this point only doing things in small bursts. And while it just needs information about his overhaul and some reception added, I've been avoiding it because this article is so structurally different from how I normally write character articles, and I recognize this is Czar's baby, it's not a case of "I can just drop the info in and go". I hope that comes across right.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Czar and Kung Fu Man: Based on the above conversation, and the lack of edits to the article, should this go to WP:GAR due to being outdated, or are editors interested in resolving the concerns? Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

  I should be able to take a look some time next month, unless someone gets to it first. czar 04:36, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Czar: Reminder ping: still interested in taking a look? Z1720 (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2026 (UTC)