Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bionicle/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 18:03, 4 June 2007.
Bionicle edit
It's a great article that has been worked on extensively by various Wikipedia members, most notably Drakhan. With all the time and effort put into it (and it's various related pages), I feel that the Bionicle page should receive some recognition. (And, I'll admit I'm a fan, so that's the main reasoning behind my wanting to nominate this, but it's still a great article disregarding that). ElectricTurahk 19:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object — The caption for Image:BionicleTextLogo.jpg says "'Bionicle' logo as used on packaging and the websites.", but the image page is licensed as GFDL-self. These can't both be right. The article does not have many references, and many of the references used do not appear to be reliable sources. (e.g., forum posts) Pagrashtak 19:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object - The article does not have enough in-line citations.Kmarinas86 20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I seriously want to know why you are all hung up on citations. It just doesn't make sense. And what's wrong with BZPower? I happen to work (WORK, not just be a member), and know that anything made as a source there will be 100% accurate (Unless a theory topic is linked to, but that wouldn't happen). Most of the posts are by the Bionicle author anyways - how aren't those reliable? And the image... Seriously, how's that a bad thing? Swert, a good friend of mine, made the logo using almost the exact font LEGO uses for the Bionicle sets. Would you rather it be some scanned blurry thing with background imagery making it look bad, or a nice, clean title made, ableit, by a fan? ElectricTurahk 20:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those sources a semi-reliable, since they are purported to be from the Bionicle author. However, I think there should be better sources for the Māori language terms (e.g. http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/). As for the logo its obviously GDFL. Though, it doesn't have to be GDFL, so try using their actual logo with an appropriate disclaimer.Kmarinas86 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to the image, here's my problem: The caption says that it is the Bionicle Logo. The image page says that BS01Swert made the image. If these are both true, it therefore follows that BS01Swert created the Bionicle Logo. I find this suspect. As for why we're "hung up" on citations, verifiability is a Wikipedia policy and proper referencing is an important element of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. Pagrashtak 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I would refer to the image as a rugged instantiation of the Bionicle logo. IOW an amateur recreation of the logo in attempt to avoid "copyright violation", since using the actual logo in wikipedia, in their eyes, might go against fair use. Notice the almost unnecessary point BS01Swert makes when referring to the different font he is using (link - the middle prong on the "E" is tipped down in contrast to the "E" in the actual Bionicle logo). Obviously he doesn't want to use the real logo, which is this.Kmarinas86 03:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those sources a semi-reliable, since they are purported to be from the Bionicle author. However, I think there should be better sources for the Māori language terms (e.g. http://www.maoridictionary.co.nz/). As for the logo its obviously GDFL. Though, it doesn't have to be GDFL, so try using their actual logo with an appropriate disclaimer.Kmarinas86 20:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Object — Lead almost certainly fails WP:LEAD and "Since this controversy, Lego has been careful to make sure that all new Bionicle names are not common terms in other languages." has a {{fact}} tag. Chwech | hum-dee-hum-hum 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Oppose. Too few references. The article is list-like and too short. Lead paragraph is too short. The prose is not up to feature article standard. It looks like a fan site (not that fans are not allowed to write articles, but being more comprehensive will help). The information is not comprehensive. What about its popularity? How was this product marketed? SeleneFN 22:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose, too few references; lists need conversion to prose. -- Phoenix2 (holla) 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball Oppose. Please review WP:WIAFA before nominating in future. LuciferMorgan 10:50, 30 May 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 candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.