Talk:Memory Almost Full

Article review

It has been a while since this article has been reviewed, so I took a look and noticed that there are uncited statements including most of the "2007 mini-tour releases" section. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Memory Almost Full

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: Excessive number of missing citations will need to be addressed before this article can be reconsidered for GA. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:53, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

Uncited statements, including most of the "2007 mini-tour releases" section. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

• Delist – I know it's early to say but I'm honestly surprised this became a GA to begin with. The reviewed version was practically the same as it is now. However, the entire "2007 minitour releases" section was absent: I assume that was merged into here from a previously deleted page. Even without that though, critical reception has only had one review in prose since its promotion (unacceptable even by 2013 Wikipedia standards); the general prose, although thoroughly sourced, isn't exactly sourced by quality ones. The article realistically needs a complete overhaul to keep GA status by today's standards, and I don't have the interest in doing so. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:59, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I was going to check out what Z brought forth, once again at the behest of the now-retired nominator, but after zmbro's points I don't know if I have it in me to fix the whole thing. mftp dan ^oops 12:54, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

So, I have some time on Saturday afternoon (EDT) to address whatever concerns there are with this. Doesn't look frightfully difficult. But you can expect me then. mftp dan ^oops 17:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

I've taken some time to look over this article. I have significant expansion prepared for the critical reception section which will be implemented tonight. Unfortunately, the unreliable sourcing present in this article is rather pervasive, particularly variants of the one zmbro listed above. I don't have the energy or ambition to fix that much. An aside, most of that mini-tour stuff could probably be axed, but not all of it. mftp dan ^oops 00:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Update: I've added all but one of the existing table reviews into the article's reception section. PopMatters I'll need to think on how I want to fit that one in, but it's one I'd like for sure. It also probably could be organized better per WP:RECEPTION, but the main objective here was expansion and I've done just that. (Many more reviews from reputable publications exist for this article which hadn't already been included, I haven't considered these yet or if they're better than what's there at the moment. The ones initially present are perfectly acceptable.) mftp dan ^oops 02:50, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Z1720: What is your take on this article now? Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:27, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

• @MFTP Dan and Bgsu98: I am sorry for the delay in response. I have added citation needed tags to the article. These will need to be resolved before I can recommend a keep declaration. Z1720 (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

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.