Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/PlayStation 3/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 promoted 01:33, 23 January 2008.

PlayStation 3[edit]

previous FAC
Check external links

Recently gained GA status after a massive reorganization and rewrite and the addition of more than 45 new citations. Well written and comprehensive without going into undo detail and probably one of the best cited articles on Wikipedia. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Are you sure all the sources are reliable? I noticed references to blogs and forum posts. BuddingJournalist 02:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... I'm not sure which refs you are referring to, but if you mean the ones that have a name before them, the vast majority of those are linked to reliable sites such as IGN.com, GameSpot.com, Nex-gen.com, and blog.us.playstation.com. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, those are fine...I'm talking about these (there may be others...these were the ones that jumped out at me):
Three of the cites there were just demonstrating different types of linux being run on the PS3, but they aren't really necessary. I left the Gamespot article on Linux for a ref for the linux statement. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced cite with this page from Kotaku. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
removed with the other unnecessary linux cites. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced cite with this page from Arstechnica. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Gizmodo page was the originator of the rumor in the United States. They said they used Google translator to find the story from a German website. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access the WSJ archives without a subscription to factiva.com. I think in this case, since I can't easily access the original story and JoyStiq is a reliable source, it will be ok to leave the cite as is. If you think this is a problem, please let me know. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick notes: Ref 4 should be attributed to the Associated Press as well. Breitbart's just hosting it. Ref 87 needs proper formatting. Why are you relying on a Google translated version of a website as a source (ref 52)?
Added Associated Press under publisher.
Formatted cite.
Changed cite to http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7441&Itemid=2 . Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BuddingJournalist 04:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I guess I didn't look over the citations as well as I should have. My apologies. (I'll look over the rest of the cites later, but right now I have to do something else.) Thingg⊕⊗ 17:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article has come a long way since the last FA nomination. I think that it is very well written and it is almost too well sourced. (If that's possible...) Definately FA quality. J.delanoygabsadds 18:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support glad to see the article cleaned up of POV issues and bad layout. Bravo. David Fuchs (talk) 16:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional support It seems to be almost but not quite there:
    • Image:Ps3 playstationhome logo.jpg needs a rationale for this specific article. (Incidentally, Image:PLAYSTATION 3 logo.svg probably falls under the same deal as Image:Los Angeles Times.svg.) Anomie⚔ 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hmm... I'm not sure what is wrong with the images' fair use rationals, but if they need to be changed, please change them to the correct rationals. (I'm not too familiar with fair use rationals and I far as I know, both images have the correct rationals.) Thingg⊕⊗ 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did fix one image that just was referring to the wrong article, I'm just not sure exactly what to claim for Image:Ps3 playstationhome logo.jpg. Basically, current guidelines want one FUR (e.g. a copy of {{Non-free media rationale}}) for each article the image appears in.
          Image:PLAYSTATION 3 logo.svg is completely fine, I was just saying it may fall under the provision of (US) copyright law that a logo consisting solely of text in a particular font is not copyrightable, so if you wanted to you could probably change it from {{non-free logo}} to {{PD-ineligible}}{{trademark}} (and thereby make it not "non-free" for Wikipedia purposes, since trademark restrictions aren't (currently) considered to do that). Anomie⚔ 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article that Image:Ps3 playstationhome logo.jpg referred to (PlayStation Network) in it's FUR no longer has the image there. I think that it is being used for the same purpose in the PlayStation 3 article as is was in the PlayStation Network article, so I switched the article it was referring to. Again, I'm not really familar with fair-use rationals, so if you could help me with this one, I would really appreciate it. Thingg⊕⊗ 14:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article needs a bit of copyediting. In particular, it has a number of awkward parenthetical statements that IMO should be worked into the prose better. I did clean up a few things. Anomie⚔ 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll look over the article again, but I may miss some stuff. (at this point, I could probably recite the article backwards in my sleep...) Thingg⊕⊗ 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is probably unnecessary to cite the same source twice in the same sentence (e.g. "Since then, the console has had several revisions made to its available SKUs[17] and has faced stiff competition from the other seventh generation consoles.[17]"). Anomie⚔ 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe, but it's probably better to be too cited that not enough. (someone may ask "What?! that sentence makes two challengeable statments and only one is cited!!!!! Not FA quality!) I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea... Thingg⊕⊗ 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • OTOH, the references in the middle of the sentence break the flow and make it harder to read. Anyone who said something like that to me would have it pointed out that they were being ridiculous and possibly pointy ;) I won't let this stand in the way of my support if you don't change it. Anomie⚔ 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You do have a very good point. Redundant ref removed. Thingg⊕⊗ 14:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the PAL release regions, is it "Europe and Oceania" or "Europe, Australia, and New Zealand"? What is "Europe and Australia (European territories)"? Anomie⚔ 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I switched all but the first one to "PAL regions. (the first's cite specifically says what is written) Thingg⊕⊗ 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't see "Oceania" in either source except in the part where the first says "SCEE is responsible for blah blah in a large chunk of the world". Anomie⚔ 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, is the way I have it now the way you want it? (not 100% sure based on your reply.) Thingg⊕⊗ 14:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the configuration table, does a month and year without a day auto-format? If not, the wikilinking of the dates should be removed. Anomie⚔ 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my humble opinion, this shouldn't be a problem (if what you meant by "configuration table" was the model comparison table), but if you think it is, please by all means remove it. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. I was mostly being too lazy to change my date preferences to test it since I couldn't find in the documentation whether or not those types of dates were formatted. But now that I edit them, I see they wouldn't be anyway because they used piped links for the months. Anomie⚔ 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Sales and production costs, there are several mentions of months where the year being referenced is unclear. At the moment, it can easily be guessed as 2007, but in a few months it will be unclear whether the information is recent or over a year old. Anomie⚔ 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote in the first paragraph under Hardware is formatted incredibly awkwardly. I suggest either '"the [Spider-Man-font-inspired] logo was' or 'the Spider-Man-font-inspired logo "was'. Anomie⚔ 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure if read the paragraph incorrectly, but your second proposal is the same as what is in the article. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The position of the starting quote mark is different. I went ahead and changed it to match my second example, since you indicated that option. It was just jarring to me to have the noun phrase split like it was. Anomie⚔ 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, thanks much (ok, so I was the one who wasn't reading it correctly. (hangs head) ;-) Thingg⊕⊗ 14:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several unnecessary links to disambiguation pages. I fixed this.
    • Something is screwed up with reference 173 here. Anomie⚔ 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • fixed the url property. (I didn't notice that the address had been pasted with a space (" ") in the middle of it.) Thingg⊕⊗ 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of the article itself looks good, it just needs a little polishing. Anomie⚔ 23:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks a lot for the review and suggestions. I appreciate them very much. Thingg⊕⊗ 03:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Once the FUR on Image:Ps3 playstationhome logo.jpg is added and the proofreading is done, I'll be satisfied. Anomie⚔ 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks a lot for the replies and comments. I really appreciate you taking the time to review the article. I'm not 100% sure that Image:Ps3 playstationhome logo.jpg's FUR is correct, but I think pretty much all of your concerns other than that have been dealt with. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 14:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there any reason why a vector drawing of the console is used and not a photo? - hahnchen 13:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could not find a free or fair use pic that was of sufficient quality. Is this a problem? Thingg⊕⊗ 14:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not opposing over it. But like Wii and Xbox 360, it's incredibly easy to produce a free use image. All it requires is a camera and a ps3. - hahnchen 15:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor Support is just as fine as Wii: detailed, referenced and illustrated. But also prone to vandalism and new info (11,173 reviews! 13th most changed!), it'll only achieve criteria 1e (stability) because it is "Semi-protected". igordebraga ≠ 15:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a fine article with much detail and good prose. Marlith T/C 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh man, I didn't see that notice and I saw other people using them. My sincere apologies, I will remove them. Thingg⊕⊗ 17:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/PlayStation_3/archive3&oldid=1138469138"