Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wii

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 review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Wii

The console has been out for a few months now, meaning that it is stable, and it has already been labeled as a Good Article. It appears to meet all the criteria for a featured article.

Ixistant 12:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't like the refs being in the wrong order, i.e. the first in the lead is 7 for some reason. Might be better to reorder them. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it's currently on long term semi-protection; not good for a FA imo. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - References in infoboxes are listed before those in the lead because infoboxes always appear before the lead in Wikitext. —Cuiviénen 15:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Furthermore, it's technically impossible to reorder references as the Cite.php doesn't allow so. Michaelas10 (Talk) 11:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Support it's a good article, but it's still a relatively new console, which brings new info and some vandals that turned it into the 6th most changed page ever. That "Semi-protected" won't go out easily... but at least it'll help to mantain the 1e criteria. igordebraga ≠ 17:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment most of those edits came from when the name Wii was originally announced. I would have no problem un protecting it though. The Placebo Effect 19:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a summary and source to Image:Nintendo Wii Channels.jpg, but it still needs fair use rationale. Image:Wii.svg needs fair use rationale as well. Pagra shtak 21:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the rationales. Contact me if you have any concerns. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support It looks like a great article which deserves FA status in my opinion. There are a lot of citations and a good length. Funpika 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently since I am a Nintendo fan I am supposed to improve the article and not vote for it. Funpika 01:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funpika's edits related to this have been limited to a single comment on the talkpage. Being a fan of the general topic doesn't mean it's inappropriate to support a nomination. If that were the case, we should probably disqualify the majority of support votes for just about any video game nominee.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Being a fan shows bias towards a subject. That's why I haven't voted. The Placebo Effect 13:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Although I am a fan, I do not own this Console nor have I added to the article, but if I was just browsing along and stumbled upon this article I would think to myself "Hmmm, this article is well-written, has many cited references, and needs a very minor amount of organizing". Good Work. §†SupaSoldier†§ 02:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support. I've been keeping an eye on this article for a while and have done some clean-up in the past to keep it on the straight and narrow. I find myself fixing a number of issues (citations, spelling, unnecessary detail), and it makes me wonder if enough effort has been made to prepare this article for FA status. Concerns given above about image copyrights need to be confidently resolved, too. Once these loose ends are tied up, it will have my full support. -/- Warren 09:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Surprisingly, there's no specific editor who improved the article thus far. Some of the people working on the article may have improved it more than others, but nevertheless this is an excellent result of community cooperation. My comments: Sole years linking should be avoided per WP:DATE, as well as months coupled with years. Merge all the tiny two-sentence paragraphs with the previous larger ones. In response to incidences of strap failures, Nintendo is offering a stronger replacement for all straps - Nintendo began offering? Nearly all of the references are English, thus tagging so one or another is unnecessary. Remove all the trivial websites from the "Unofficial coverage" section — Cubed3, TheWiire, and WiiPlus — in accordance with the WP:EL guideline. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed them all myself. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Lots of hard work was put into this arctile, I would like to see it become featured. only 20 edits. -- Darkest Hour 19:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Numerous footnotes are just blue links, lacking publisher, date, last access date, and full biblio info (see examples at Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style). Not clear if section heading "Wii Channels" is a violation of WP:MSH, of if there's a reason for channels to be capped. Non-breaking hard spaces are needed between numbers and units of measurment [1]. The WP:LEAD should provide a better summary of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply "Wii Channels" is a proper name. I am working on the ref's. What else does the lead need? The Placebo Effect 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply To clarify, "Wii Channels" and "Wii Remote" are trademarks of Nintendo. Just64helpin

Thanks for clarification on names. Footnotes are still not done; is anyone going to work on them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been getting them, which fotnotes still need to be fixed? The Placebo Effect 21:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose footnotes need work. And couldn't the pictures be better for such a popular device? KnightLago 00:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Working on footnotes,I don't own it but other people do and I'll put a request on the talk page for a picture. What do you want a picture of specifically? The Placebo Effect 03:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've been a minor participant in making this article better in the past and I am very pleased with its current state. Grand master ka 08:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I can´t believe this article has stayed coherent for so long... - !Malomeat 01:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't see anything wrong with article. It is very well written applaying to all aspects ;-) Penubag 05:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)penubag[reply]
Comment In an FAC I participated in, I was told "See Also" sections are frowned upon for FAs. Since then, I kind of watch out for that, and wonder if it should be removed here.--Clyde (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That info isn't entirely correct; read See also at WP:GTL. See also is fine in this case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well my concern is that FAs should have brilliant prose, and as such should include less lists rather than more. It seems that Homebrew could be easily integrated into the article (I'm surprised it's not) and I question the relevance of "list of games published by Nintendo" being in the See Also at all. I will reluctantly concede the point, but it wouldn’t please me to see a Featured Article with a list where I question both entries. As such, I don't think it will get my support.--Clyde (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - "don't think it will not"? Was that double-negative intentional? Just64helpin 17:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Probably. Hey man I'm not saying I have brillant prose. Cut me some slack, I was in hurry. Point is, no support from me (and I fixed that grammer problem).--Clyde (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I was wondering whether my site www.wiitalk.co.uk would make it to your external list page for the Wii - Its probably the biggest unofficial Wii site around, with blogs and many dedicated members - thanks**
Weak oppose I don't like reference links ^[1] in the infobox, makes it look messy. Please have the information elsewhere in the article such as in a table (for units sold) and put the reference links there. Also the wii game disk + wii remote images should be cropped down to take out the extra wood border. Same with the main picture, could remove some of the white space on the left. And the game consoles template shouldn't to be under references section as it just causes the references to squash up and a lot of space is wasted below the template. Also those nav boxes under external links (nintedo portal/wiki commons etc) would look better having biggest at top. Hope you take my ideas onboard.--The Negotiator 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried to crop the Wii Remote picture, but I couldn't find a "upload new version of this picture" link like there is on most pictures (I tried uploading a pic with the same name at Wikimedia Commons, but it says my account is too new to do that). TJ Spyke 12:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think semi-protected pages should achieve FA status. If it can be unprotected for about a week without edit wars or huge amounts of vandalism, then I'll change my vote. --Icestryke 07:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is semi-protected, not because of edit-wars but because of vandals e.g. children. This is out of the editors control.--The Negotiator 09:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

^ [1]

[1] [1]

[1]