Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Killer7/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:41, 26 July 2010 [1].
Killer7[edit]
Killer7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the featured article criteria. Please feel free to make any suggestions or criticisms that you think are appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 11:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's Unseen64 and insert credit and are they reliable? I note a couple of instances of the not-always-reliable Joystiq and Kotaku also. Are these replaceable? bridies (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I replaced the Kotaku ref. The Joystiq ref is actually a primary source, since it reproduces Thompson's letter in full. insert credit is of unknown reliability (which is to say, it hasn't been discussed), but the contributing author, Tim Rogers, is a well-known New Games Journalist, who provides a unique perspective not found in other reviews. Unseen 64 also provides primary sources in the sense that they compile pre-release/beta screenshots into one central location. I'm not citing the article, but the screenshots found in the article. But, if you still have an objection to it, I'm not particularly attached to that bit of information. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was wondering more whether it's acceptable to trust Joystiq to republish the letter faithfully, seeing as it's an issue of controversy, but I suppose that's a bit of a stretch. If Roger's himself is reliable that's fine. I don't have a strong opinion either way on the screenshots. I'd review further but it seems this will have to wait until .hack is done. bridies (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per criterion three:- File:Killer7boxnew.jpg - Needs a detailed and specific rationale per NFCC#10C AND WP:FURG. Of course an image "add[s] a visual description"; that's a function, not purpose. What contribution does such a description make to a reader's understanding? (I'm not saying it does or doesn't; I'm saying it needs to be articulated.) Needs to attribute copyright holder (NFCC#10C).
- File:Killer7screen.jpg - Same issue. How is this specific with boilerplate nonsense like "or a closely related article"?
File:Killer7OriginalSoundTrack.jpg - No source (!) (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A). No rationale (!) (NFCC#10A). Not Low resolution (NFCC#3B). All moot, as it appears to fail NFCC#8: what is the significant contribution? Do we really believe that a reader, after seeing this above and the "Soundtrack" header would be unable to determine that they've reached the correct article? What meaning or significance does the box art have?Эlcobbola talk 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I removed the soundtrack cover, since it's not terribly interesting or helpful. I added more specific FUR. Is that what you're looking for? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: nominator has .hack (video game series) still open. Sorry, but as per FAC rules, this second nomination should be closed until after the earlier one has been resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I only just recently learned of this rule. Ordinarily, I'd just accept it and let it pass but under the circumstances, I was wondering if you could bend the rules a bit this time. It's summer, so I'm basically a full-time editor. The rule was originally implemented because they feared that more than one nomination would split the nominator's time and effort, preventing them from fully addressing any objections. However, since I have so much free time, this is basically all I do. If it appears that the quality of my work is suffering, then I will gladly withdraw one FAC, but could you at least give me a chance first? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just a matter of whether or not major contributors have the time/ability to run two nominations at once, but whether the limited number of capable editors willing to review FACs can handle it. Neither of the articles have received !support from reviewers, and while answering comments/questions in a timely manner certainly helps during the FAC process, double the nominations sucks double the reviewer resources. You can always renominate. María (habla conmigo) 13:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the issue, I'd be glad to help with the review process for other nominations. I'll be going through the older noms now. Axem Titanium (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just a matter of whether or not major contributors have the time/ability to run two nominations at once, but whether the limited number of capable editors willing to review FACs can handle it. Neither of the articles have received !support from reviewers, and while answering comments/questions in a timely manner certainly helps during the FAC process, double the nominations sucks double the reviewer resources. You can always renominate. María (habla conmigo) 13:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.