Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE/archive2

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 archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2023 [1].

Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE

Nominator(s): Therealgamer1234 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a role playing game that has become famous around the world, I believe it has all the elements that make it a featured article, although I am new and want experience with wikipedia, this article it a great way to start, I want more experienced editors to take a look at it and see if it truly does meet elements of featured article criteria, let's make it quick so that it can be featured in June 24, 2023, the aniversary date of its international release! Therealgamer1234 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Therealgamer1234, welcome. A couple things you should be aware of: first off, it's very unlikely that this will be featured by June 24. This process does take a bit of time, especially when edits are needed. Second, part of the process is that if you're not one of the significant contributors to the article, you should consult with them before nomination - I see that you posted to their talk pages after you nominated. Finally, getting an article featured requires some pretty in-depth understanding of Wikipedia's manual of style, image licensing, citation practices, and more. I'd suggest getting your feet wet outside of FAC before nominating an article. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, I think the editors that I have summoned do have pretty in-depth understanding of the manual of style, so they can finish what I have started! Let's make this article awesome and featured! I think this article is perfect on its own! Miracles can happen! :) --Therealgamer1234 (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's turn this [2] into TMSFE! --Therealgamer1234 (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealgamer1234: even if a TFA had not already been picked for June 24 (which it has) there is literally zero chance of this article getting to FA status before then (only nine days away), so I would not focus on that. Look at some of the nominations near the bottom of the FAC page - they have been open for six or seven weeks and still not promoted. It's completely unrealistic to think that an article can get to FA in nine days -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This reply is to say, in response to the message on my talk page from the nominator so this can be on record, that I've zero interest in helping to bring this article to FA, and feel I should oppose on grounds similar to the last FAC: not many contributions from the nominator. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not relevant here, but the history of the nominator is a little odd. Nominated an article at FAC with only their second ever edit, only created their account today but knew how to find the TFA queue, and within 16 minutes of creating an account posted on their user page "Throughout my time on Wikipedia, I have made numerous contributions to various articles". I suppose they could previously have edited as an IP but it just looks a bit fishy...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Therealgamer1234:@ChrisTheDude:, well we can expidite the FAC process to make it quick (to be done in less than 9 days), and my userpage was written by ChatGPT, sorry about that. In addition, the plot's 5 paragraphs are well cited!

(P.S: If somebody else can improve this article to FA, I'll be welcome for that!)--Therealgamer1234 (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the plot's 5 paragraphs are well cited! - there is literally not a single citation in the plot section. I hope this doesn't come across as rude or condescending, as it's not meant to, but are you familiar with what citing means? If not, I'd suggest you spend a lot of time familiarising yourself with WP before jumping right into nominating articles for FA..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citing a plot usually isn't necessary, per WP:PLOTCITE. Panini! • 🥪 18:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my point (possibly quite badly made) was not that citations were needed, but that Therealgamer1234 was saying that the section was "well cited" when it didn't contain any citations at all, leading me to question if they understood what citing actually meant..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Unlimitedlead

While I do find all the aforementioned details about the nominator suspicious, I am afraid I have to oppose this nomination, not on the grounds that were mentioned above, but because the Plot section consists of five, large paragraphs that are all unreferenced. I suggest that the nominator first take the article to PR and get some more knowledge of Wikipedia's workings before returning to FA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection of the article's talk page, I see that the now globally-locked User:Yoichi Tachibana previously took this article to PR, giving the same reasoning as this user has for nominating the article. I am aware that FA is probably not the place for these theories, but any chance that this user is a sockpuppet? Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unlimitedlead Probably just Coincidence. --Therealgamer1234 (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Aoba47

Looking through Special:Contributions/Therealgamer1234, they have not made a single edit to the main article. They have seemingly not consulted with any of the article's major contributors on a potential FAC. Their expected time frame is unrealistic as FACs are kept active for at least two weeks (i.e. 14 days) from my experience. Rushing a FAC is never a good look.

The "Plot" section does need a citation as the game serves the primary source for that; see Zero Escape: Virtue's Last Reward as an example. I think the bigger issues are the nominator's lack of contributions to the article. I think the sockpuppet aspect deserves more discussion and should not just be completely dismissed as without merit or just a coincidence. But either way, this FAC is not appropriately done. Aoba47 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - personally I'd be quite surprised if a FAC was closed in anything less than a month these days. BTW I presume you meant to write that the "Plot" section does not need a citation....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: done that. Therealgamer1234 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the message and apologies for my typo. I did mean that the "Plot" section does not need citations. I agree that FACs usually take longer. I was more so saying that I think even under the most ideal conditions (i.e. a FAC getting a lot of commentary and support), that coordinators would not even consider promoting it until after at least two weeks or so. I would say that a month is the time frame nominators should more so expect if that makes sense. Apologies again. Just having a weird headache today so having trouble focusing. Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - no problem, hope you feel better later! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from KGRAMR

Sorry but no, i have to oppose this FA nomination. While i have done some GA nominations so far, i can understand the amount of work it takes to make into said status, but FA is a whole different can of worms and is more strict than the GA nominations. The user nominating the article is not a significant contributor of the article, which can be evidenced by the page's history section. Also, trying to make it an FA prior to the game's sixth anniversary of its international release seems ill advised, like just for the sake of being featured on Wikipedia's main page. Those are my reasonings... Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: @ProtoDrake: @Panini!: @KGRAMR: In consolation we can all make this part of the DYK section of the main page by June 24th, just in time for the aniversary exception please and are there any other ways to make this article featured on the main page? Therealgamer1234 (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from TAOT

ProtoDrake is the one who's done the work here, while the nominator has made only a single edit to the article. With ProtoDrake in opposition, I have no choice but to oppose on principle, and doubly so because this nomination is drive-by. FAC is an involved process and the nominator must be very familiar with the subject and the sources in the article. The nom here has essentially no mainspace participation and therefore has no business nominating anything. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't @ProtoDrake: interested in making this an FA, I only want this to be an FA so that it can be part of the main page of June 24th. Therealgamer1234 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 01:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.