Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/PlayStation 3/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article review
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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:18, 27 September 2010 [1].

PlayStation 3 edit

PlayStation 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Notified: Thingg, Gatoatigrado, WikiProject PlayStation, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Blu-ray

Review commentary edit

As the first FAR for PlayStation 3 since its promotion, I am nominating this featured article for review because this article is overrun with "dead link" or "dated link" templates, which lists this article in a total of 11 hidden categories with 7 bare links (ex: a link that's [1]). Another concern is that some sections like "Operating Systems" are starting to fail Featured article criteria 1(a). My last concern is that there are too many pictures on the article that appear solely decorative. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly due to it being a current-gen video game console, the article is hopelessly unstable. IMO this article fails 1e, but I will take a closer look into the article and see what other shortcomings it has. –MuZemike 00:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues off the bat:

  • Dabs – there are two dabs that need to be fixed [2].
  • Deadlinks – I count 10 deadlinks in the article's references as well as a whole slew of links being HTTP 301 that should be fixed (especially if any 301s redirect elsewhere).

–MuZemike 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several very, very short paragraphs (1-2 sentences) abound, so a copy edit is in order. Also a lot of one-sentence subsections, and I tagged a completely unreferenced section. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LEADCITE issues - several references in the lead either need to be removed/moved as the body should cover all aspects of the lead. --Teancum (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second this, just want to point out we haven't exactly been enforcing this across the board until somewhat recently. So, hopefully the people who were originally working on it or others can take care of it, it isn't too rough. Ryan Norton 13:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just thought I'd dig in on this: While I do agree that the sourcing here can be considered excessive, know that, so far, we have yet to see a discussion whose outcome actually prohibits redundant sources in the lead. Prime Blue (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the latest discussion - although despite that FAC always tend to be a bit ahead of the curve. The fact is that the vast, vast (95%?) majority of leads in current passing FAs have no inline cites and ones that do generally get an oppose for it. One reason is that generally if you have to cite something in the lead you are putting something in the lead that isn't in the article or isn't elaborated enough on in the article. Such is life. Ryan Norton 23:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the issues:
  • There are six dead links in the article:
Fixed
Removed, duplicate reference
Fixed
Fixed
Not dead any longer, it seems
  • and also note these images:
I reduced the resolution of those images to 400px in length.KiasuKiasiMan 16:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed dead links marked above; one remains. --PresN 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lede/intro is too short, this should be expanded quite a bit more, in order to function, per WP:LEAD, as an adequate stand-alone summary of the entire article's contents. I am noticing short-paragraphs throughout, as well as one-sentence-long-paragraphs and ultra-short-subsections. These should be merged, or expanded upon a bit more. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern include prose, images, sourcing and stability. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/PlayStation_3/archive1&oldid=1138477581"