Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mega Man weapons (2)

List of Mega Man weapons

Self-nomination. Looked back at the previous nomination and other successful featured article canidates to learn how I acted in error.

The most prominent qualms were fair use rationale insertion on images, neatness, and the inclusion of the skills gained by each protagonist in each iteration. I've been constructing minor updates and tweaks, ammending these, and constructed a seperate list (List of Mega Man skills and attacks) for complete inclusion purposes. I made links to that list as well, where appropriate, in each series subsection.

I studied the proper orginazation of reference sections and changed that too, digging up all the FAQs possible, explaining the summeries for each weapon. I also updated some images, to keep the reader in line with appearences. There's still some discussion on naming conventions concerning the ambiguity of the term "weaponry", but its more or less gone nowhere, and so I attempted a comprimise by merely making notes why the lists were seperate, as well as distintive comments in the article. It has been a long, grueling task, but I think the lass is ready for Featured List status. -Zero^Talk 12:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, at least some of the uparrows on the references don't work properly. Suggest using references/cites per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php -- I@n ≡ talk 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I know, it was an error. I tried creating the references and migrating the topics there, but I found out that it wasn't so simple, so I'm resigned to keeping it the way it is. Thank you for the link; I'll get to fixing it. -Zero^Talk 14:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Persevere. Once you get the hang of it, the new way is much simpler and user friendly. -- I@n ≡ talk 14:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Its such a lovely way of referencing on wikis, as there's many ways of formatting depending on the editor. It seems that when you insert an over abundance of text into the ref or note template (Oh, say about 4 letters), the linking goes all willy nilly. Anyhow, I've now fixed the reference links so that they correspond to the respective URl and citations. -Zero^Talk 18:50, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The criteria asks for it to be ...bringing together a group of related articles, but not one of the list items is a link to an article. Nevertheless, this is a fine article and is a credit to the author. Sorry, but it's not a FL for me. -- I@n ≡ talk 14:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a interesting point that was brought up on project talkpage here. The original article was also Z-Saber, merely the summary of it in one article. It was later nominated for afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z-Saber), and the conclusion of the debate was a merge into a larger, comprehensive list. So here it is. The items simply aren't expansinve enough to warrent seperate articles, especially when its more plausible to do so collectively here. -Zero^Talk 14:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object I've been looking at the fair use rationale; you might want to double-check it. The few I picked at random all say "Capcom has released many works of art to the public domain." You're probably meaning to say the opposite. If this were true, it would severely weaken any fair use claim. I also see "The image does not limit Square's ability to sell the game." This is true, as Square's ability to sell this game is already zero. Rationale aside, I think there are too many fair use images - I count thirteen at the moment and I don't think they are all necessary.

The article looks like it needs a copy edit; I see problems just looking at the lead, such as number disagreement (they uses) and a pronoun without an antecedent. I'm concerned that all but one of your inline references are to FAQs on GameFAQs. Pagrashtak 04:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I slipped up on the fair use summeries. I'll fix that. As for the copy edit, I'm quite utterly hopeless and some assistance concerning that would be great. -Zero^Talk 08:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the fair use rationale; thanks for the heads up. I'll start on the copy edit for that opening pharagrah. Anything else...? -Zero^Talk 08:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And the copy edit to the pharagraph is done as well. In the future, if you spy some silliness like that in a pharagraph, please feel free to ammend it. -Zero^Talk 08:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)