Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sheng Long/archive1
- 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 Gary King 16:51, 9 February 2009 [1].
Sheng Long edit
- Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk)
WITHDRAWN Sorry for wasting everyone's time it would seem.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating Sheng Long after working extensively on the article and receiving an extensive copyedit by User:Guyinblack25. The subject matter in the article is covered fully, handling all aspects of the subject from it's origin, presentation, and legacy. As always if any issues exist within the article that have been missed I'll be more than happy to fix them immediately. Thank you for your time and patience.Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit torn over this. On one-hand, it's a sub-20kb article, which is nearly always grounds for an oppose from me. Same for only having two sections, and clocking at just under 1750 words. On the other hand, you do appear to have put a lot of effort into it. And perhaps, for a subject this obscure (though maybe not; Ryu always stopped me from getting the Akuma ending, so I heard of Sheng Long a lot), maybe this is all you can write. Hrmm. Sceptre (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose, 1a. This is quite a ways off base currently. This absolutely has to be treated for digestion by a general audience, despite the specialized nature of the content. The lead is not well-written at all. I had a hard time comprehending it and I'm a gamer—imagine how others will struggle. It is a confused combination of explaining the hoax and explaining the character that lacks organization and clear logic. "[O]ne of the most enduring and well-known legends in video game history" is a fantastic claim that is not backed up in the prose or in the listed sources. Perhaps in Street Fighter franchise history, but certainly not all of video games. Further examination of the prose is not possible until we have a clear lead written to a general audience. --Laser brain (talk) 05:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrote some of it, trying to make it flow a little better if possible. Expanded the lead with what I could, and softened the cited line with referencing towards GameSpot and GameDaily (which noted it as well known and famous, respectively). Better?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
- "based upon a mistranslation suggesting a character" – What does this mean?
- "by the name of" – "named"
- "Though introduced in 1992, Sheng Long's appearance was not defined until 1997" – End it with a period.
- "
Due toAfter other publicationsreprintingreprinted the details" - "without
attempting to verify theverifying its" - These "Due to [...] they did this." sentences should be reworded to "After this happened, they did this." It's far easier to read. I find "Due to" to not be very easy to read in general.
- "by
sourcespublications" - "of Ryu's victory quotes to" – I don't know what "victory quotes" are.
The article is still a bit thick with video game terminology in places, some which even I don't understand. I think I've only played one or two Street Fighter games in my day. Gary King (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed what you mentioned, few other fixes as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Ryu's win quote spawned" – Not understandable to unfamiliar readers
- "if a player using Ryu did not suffer any damage" – So if I punch the player in the arm, this won't work?
- "but
inflictedinflict more" - "was faster than" – Perhaps needs a "supposedly" in there.
- "he's stated" – "he is stated"
- "Sheng Long makes no appearance in the game" – "Sheng Long does not appear in the game"
The prose still needs to be more direct and clear. Gary King (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed each one tossed up.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The prose is very poor. This article requires extensive third-party copy-editing. The nomination is premature. Graham Colm Talk 20:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's already had two copyedits, one prior and one now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to the question you left on my Talk Page, this is but one example of very poor prose throughout the article:
- The joke, based upon a mistranslation that suggested the existence of a character named Sheng Long appearing in the Capcom video game Street Fighter II, offered a method to fight the character in the game. "The joke..offered a method to fight the character in the game"?
- In response to the question you left on my Talk Page, this is but one example of very poor prose throughout the article:
WRT copy-edits, it is not quantity but quality that counts. Graham Colm Talk 21:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed "offered" to "described", which should get the meaning across a lot better. Hopefully. If you can point out outs I'll hammer them as needed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this is FAC not Peer Review. Graham Colm Talk 21:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And peer review's backlogged with fifteen articles, one of which is another article I've heavily worked on. Without help more than likely this is going to fail at the end of the week and just be GA. And I could go through countless copyedits and possibly never fix the parts you think are in error. So with six days left asking you to point out what you want fixed in the text and let me try isn't an unreasonable request.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I say this with all due respect, Kung Fu Man, but it actually is an unreasonable request. FAC is a place to bring highly-polished articles that might need a bit of tweaking to be FA quality. Barring that, articles that need substantial work should be withdrawn and brought up to quality. FAC reviewers cannot be called upon to delineate long lists of defects. --Laser brain (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And peer review's backlogged with fifteen articles, one of which is another article I've heavily worked on. Without help more than likely this is going to fail at the end of the week and just be GA. And I could go through countless copyedits and possibly never fix the parts you think are in error. So with six days left asking you to point out what you want fixed in the text and let me try isn't an unreasonable request.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, this is FAC not Peer Review. Graham Colm Talk 21:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
- Per the MOS, link titles in the references shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original.
- Fixed (You meant the EGM Retro 200 ref, correct?)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes hte following reliable sources?
- Michael McWhertor is Kotaku's senior editor and has been interviewed by sources such as Gametrailers' Bonus Stage broadcast as seen here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being interviewed doesn't make him an "expert in his field" which is basically what you need to have for the kotaku refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The interviews have involved him for the purposes of having said expertise actually. And still, he is their senior editor which would entail a need for reliability, no? (Not really sure how to answer the query beyond this).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being interviewed doesn't make him an "expert in his field" which is basically what you need to have for the kotaku refs. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael McWhertor is Kotaku's senior editor and has been interviewed by sources such as Gametrailers' Bonus Stage broadcast as seen here.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did not evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Revisiting, I don't see moves toward this being FA quality. A top-to-bottom copyedit is going to be needed by someone new; however, the problems transcend plain grammar. Examples just from one section:
- "Sheng Long is cited as an influential factor for the Street Fighter series, earning mention in articles such as GameDaily's Top 20 Street Fighter Characters of All Time list, in which the character placed nineteenth despite not being an actual character." Just one sentence, but small error ("factor in", not "factor for"), MoS breach (article titles should be in quotes), and the ending clause doesn't make sense to a non-gamer.
- Next sentence: "The rumor is often credited with inspiring the creation of Akuma, a character who debuted as a hidden final boss ..." What rumor? A rumor has not been mentioned recently. A hidden final boss? Nonsensical to the non-gamer.
- As I mentioned above, the grammar, while a major problem, is not the only problem. Before the copyedit, this needs treatment for a general audience. Please withdraw this until it is ready. --Laser brain (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has been withdrawn per nominator's request. Gary King (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.