Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/DualDisc/archive2

DualDisc edit

This is a resubmission and a self-nom. Myself and all the people who worked on this article and submitted comments during the first round of FAC comments have made this article a shining example of the type of article that every Wikipedia article should strive to be.

Original comments from the first round are here. All objections from that round were resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

Support. Mirror Vax 15:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Object. Not stable. In terms of the relatively short life of the subject, much of the information is already obsolete. The article also does not adequately describe the problems with potentially incompatible hardware (e.g., the details in the linked Pioneer alert notice). Monicasdude 13:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- From my talk page: "I don't want to seem too negative, but I don't think you could put anything in the article that would overcome my main objection, which is that the article can't be both comprehensive and stable, as required by FAC guidelines. The situation, for lack of a better word, is developing fairly rapidly -- I saw, for example, a "recent developments" article in the new ICE magazine this week. To oversimplify an analogy, I wouldn't support any FAC for an article on "The 2005 baseball season," no matter how good it was, until the season was over. FWIW, I also think the SACD discussion is out-of-date, given Sony's pullback, and there's a reference to a November 2005 article that I assume is misdated. Monicasdude 17:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Just to clarify a bit: I think this is an excellent piece of work. The way I read the FA guidelines, though, it's too soon to be possible to write an article that meets the stability requirement for this technology. The Sony pullback I mentioned is an example of this, with that matter becoming clear, as I recall, only a few weeks ago. Monicasdude 20:40, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]