Wikipedia:Featured article review/Wii/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 kept by Dana boomer 12:33, 16 November 2012 [1].

Wii edit

Notified: Ixistant, WikiProject Video games

I'm bringing this to FAR primarily over concerns about outdated information and poor sourcing. There are currently maintenance templates (Template:Out of date & Template:Update) on the "Backward compatibility" and "Wii Family Edition" sections. I counted 8 paragraphs without citations. The prose quality is also well below featured quality at this point, and the reference formatting is a mess too. A message on the article's talk page about the article's issues a couple weeks ago went unanswered. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC Mark A is spot on. Not one edit has been made to the article. PumpkinSky talk 22:25, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've since addressed the update issues and added additional in-line citations. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that Jtalledo, I'll take another look at the article, but I should mention that last I check the prose was well below featured quality. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leads are summaries and as such this is overcited. Some refs need format work, prose weak, sentences/paragraphs choppy. PumpkinSky talk 02:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the prose, what particular passages and sentences? Excerpts would help. Thanks. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing really, featured-quality prose is a high bar. Your best bet would be to get somebody from the GOCE to go over it. They're having a drive right now, so the wait might not be too long. Just submit a request and then ping someone who seems pretty active from this list. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the article at GOCE. The current drive seems to be focused on July and August 2012, as well as earlier months. In the meantime, I'll review the article for any glaring problems and make corrections as necessary. --Jtalledo (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my comments:

File:Wii.svg, source is a bare URL and VGPRO appears to be longer active.
File:Wiimen.png, redirects to the official Wii page at the Nintendo website.
Toolserver shows that refs 66, 93, 96, 103, 108, 121, 134, 139, 232, 243 is a dead link.
This link [2], points out to the reregistration screen.

JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 09:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the FT link as well as the image sources. I checked all the refs you mentioned and all of them still work. --Jtalledo (talk)

Question - Can we get an update on how work is going on this? Is it about finished or should it be moved to the FARC stage? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Jtalledo has done some good work improving the article here, and should be commended for that, I don't think the article is at a point where I'd be comfortable keeping it at a featured article. Remaining issues (in my mind) are the prose failing to reach 1a, the 10 or so dead links, and several bare urls/reference formatting issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can fix the dead links/ref issues pretty easily. As for the prose, absent any concrete examples, I don't know what needs fixed. I've referred it to GOCE, but they haven't got to it yet. I suppose you could move it to FARC, but I think progress is being made towards keeping it FA quality. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added Wayback links/updated bad links. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seeing that there is a gap between the last edits, October 24th to November 1st, I think that this review should transition to FARC. GamerPro64 05:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err... what does a week gap in editing have to do with being at feature article standard? --Jtalledo (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm getting at is there hasn't been a lot of editing on the article. Also I think its about time it should more at FARC. GamerPro64 15:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since concerns have been raised about prose quality (and the article is on the Guild of Copy Editors' request page), I'll copyedit it. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 20:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Miniapolis. Would you please post here when you're finished? Then we can ping Mark back in and hopefully get this wrapped up fairly quickly. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Miniapolis posted that the copyediting is finished on my talk page. Noting this just in case Miniapolis isn't watching this FAR discussion. --Jtalledo (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think my major concerns have been addressed at this point. Probably some polishing that could still be done, but I don't think this needs to be kept open. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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