Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Xbox 360/1

Good Article Delisting[edit]

I am plannning on deleting the good article tag, before doing so, I am willing to discuss it here. I believe this fails the good article critera for the following reason; It does not follow the neutral point of view policy. --Mgillespie 13:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of one sided views, and in cases misinformation. For example, the great sales figures, with no mention of the dire sales in Asia and lacklustre sales n Europe.

Whilst we can agree that sales in Japan are dire, is it true for the whole of Asia? In addition, there is no source cited for sales figures in EuropeSpaceman99 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In order for this to be an objective article you need to tell the other side of the story as well, namely the huge problem of consoles failing.

Provide reliable sources and I'm sure that information can be included. Syrthiss 16:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I am personally in the process of returning my third Xbox 360 which has failed in the span of less than one year.

There is an online petition @ <blocked link> calling for microsoft to recall this product. The petition is also referenced on the consumeraffiars.com site @ http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/12/xbox_petition.html

Following links detail Chris Szarek's four failed 360's http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=53863 http://blogs.mercurynews.com/aei/2006/05/the_unluckiest_.html

Is there anything else I need to include? Darrylhansen 19:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those look like reliable sources. I'd like to get some more opinions on that, but 3 of those are not any kind of news source with external vetting. The Mercury News itself is a valid news organization that I could trust to be a reliable source, but the link is to a news-blog which are often more opinion than facts. Syrthiss 19:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the good article listing, until some of the heavy fanboy bias is removed, and replaced with factual information. --Mgillespie 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The reason why this page is now fully-protected was that I was getting sick and tired of the stupid argument over whether or not it was shipped or sold. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 16:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]