Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Castle Crashers/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 Karanacs 20:31, 10 July 2011 [1].
Castle Crashers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Rainbow Dash 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About two months ago (give or take) I nominated Castle Crashers for GA, which turned out making the article a good article. I believe that the article has been improved more since it's declaration of being a new GA, and that it's ready to take it a level higher. Rainbow Dash 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? This?
- GamerBytes.com no longer exists as an independent website. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Media: The rationale for the box-art is sound (though, ideally, the old version will be deleted) but I am a little concerned about the two other images. Both are potentially valid, but the rationales are a little flimsy. While the rationale for the screenshot states that it is being used to show the gameplay and the graphics (short of a complex HUD or something, I'd say that it's really only needed to display the graphics) but it is currently being used to decorate the story section. As for the other image, I'd want to see a little bit more about the importance of that style of character design before an image was used. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong oppose - as the person who did most of the work bringing this to GA status I can say this is nowhere near ready for FA. The prose is not up to snuff, the changes since it passed GAN are minimal, the rationales for the images need a lot of work, and there are some sources that just won't pass FA, but better serve the article.Honestly this is one case that where there just isn't the coverage to make it an FA and keep the quality of the article high. --Teancum (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant oppose: As the editor that passed the article for GA, I have to agree with everything Teancum stated. I don't recall my opinion on the sources Nikki questioned above, but I believe the NewGrounds link is a primary source, so its reliability is based on WP:SELFPUB. Regardless, the article, while in good shape, is not up to featured quality. (Guyinblack25 talk 02:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.