Wikipedia:Featured article review/Commodore 64/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed 12:25, 14 April 2007.
Commodore 64 edit
Review commentary edit
- Talk messages left at DanielNuyu and Video games. LuciferMorgan 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well written article. Cman 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ummm, unless I'm missing something this article is currently a featured article ?!?! Dr pda 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it was a feature article back in 2005. Cman 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think it was Cman's intention to have this at FAR. Rather I think the intention was to have it appear on the main page again. So far no article has ever appeared on the main page twice, and it's not likely to happen in the near future. FAs are being produced faster than one per day, so there is no shortage. Gimmetrow 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this'll end up on FAR sooner or later regardless - fails a few criteria points. I think it should stay here to be honest. LuciferMorgan 23:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, if you will be taking responsibility for this FAR nomination. Gimmetrow 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Me? I'm not taking responsibility for anything at FAR other than my own FAR nominations after recent FAR events. LuciferMorgan 23:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what that encompasses, but I could help.--Clyde (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I have the knowledge or drive to handle the major work this thing needs to stay FA on my own (I certainly know the work amount in an FA). Drop some messages, see who comes. I know it fails 1(c), 3, and maybe 1(a).--Clyde (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that although it came here via a strange route, it does need to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If all reviews by the FAR regulars is going to be in checklist fashion, then we'll have to make sure that those checklists are applied correctly. FAR is not about footnote counting, so please produce some detailed and constructive criticism. And don't do it by simply adding random fact tags that simply amount to "I don't believe this but I have no counterarguments for my doubts". As far as I'm concerned it's a mild form of WP:POINT-making. Try to show some commitment to your task as reviewers and produce reasonable doubt or justification for the blanket accusations of "not enough inlines". Peter Isotalo 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of take offense to that. I've never worked in a FAR before, and whenever I read about them, they always start by listing the criteria that the article fails. This came here in a weird fashion, so I was under the impression that needed to be done. The reason why I thought this was short on citations is because many FAs around now have at least 1 citation per paragraph. In this case, history has only two, and there are zero in hardware or software. There is a group of references at the end that need to be integrated, which might help take care of the lack of citations. According to you, I can't help the citation problem by adding fact tags (it's violating WP:POINT apparently), so I guess we'll have to wait for someone who knows a lot about the Commodore 64 to come around and specifically tell us what needs to be citied. I don't understand, stuff like "Due to its advanced graphics and sound, the C64 is often credited with starting the computer subculture known as the demoscene (see Commodore 64 demos)." probably needs a fact tag. There is enough stuff like that in there that it wouldn't have to be random. Oh, and by the way, I doubt there will be much "commitment" or "reasonable doubt", since there is no one who wants to see this burn unless it's improved, and there's no one who really wants to save it.--Clyde (talk) 14:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If all reviews by the FAR regulars is going to be in checklist fashion, then we'll have to make sure that those checklists are applied correctly. FAR is not about footnote counting, so please produce some detailed and constructive criticism. And don't do it by simply adding random fact tags that simply amount to "I don't believe this but I have no counterarguments for my doubts". As far as I'm concerned it's a mild form of WP:POINT-making. Try to show some commitment to your task as reviewers and produce reasonable doubt or justification for the blanket accusations of "not enough inlines". Peter Isotalo 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that although it came here via a strange route, it does need to be here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I have the knowledge or drive to handle the major work this thing needs to stay FA on my own (I certainly know the work amount in an FA). Drop some messages, see who comes. I know it fails 1(c), 3, and maybe 1(a).--Clyde (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine, if you will be taking responsibility for this FAR nomination. Gimmetrow 23:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this'll end up on FAR sooner or later regardless - fails a few criteria points. I think it should stay here to be honest. LuciferMorgan 23:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A good first step would be eliminating the gallery of fair use images, it violates the fair use criteria. Jay32183 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should the article have KiB or kB? At the time of promotion it had kB, and this was the common use during the period this article is about. Gimmetrow 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer KiB to avoid confusion. Most people will assume the modern usage of kB. Jay32183 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was only converted to KiB in early March. I would prefer kB for historical computers, but as long it stays with KiB (no "kibinybbles" please), it's probably tolerable. The fair use image for the game doesn't seem justified; the other images appear to be PD or freely licensed. Gimmetrow 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer KiB to avoid confusion. Most people will assume the modern usage of kB. Jay32183 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article only has ONE reliable inline citation. That's horrible. How did this become a featured article? --Teggles 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary edit
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), images (3), and prose (1a). Marskell 13:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove While images have been removed and some terminology has been changed, nothing is being done regarding inline citations; there are currently 6. If work gets done please notify me or if I'm away and it get's a significant amount of citations disregard my comments. Aaron Bowen 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. LuciferMorgan 22:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per 1c. Jay32183 17:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove per Aaron Bowen, also notify me if anything changes. Quadzilla99 09:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove—1c, and the overlinking with trivial items calls into question the "professional" standard of formatting that is required. Tony 23:43, 13 April 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.