Sonic News Network:Featured Article nominations

This page is for nominating pages for Featured Article status.

To nominate a page, users must tag the page with Template:Nominated Featured Article, and create a sub-section on this page under the heading of Nominations. Users will then discuss and evaluate the page's suitability as a Featured Article. If successful, it will be listed at Sonic News Network:Featured Article and will be recognized on the Main Page! If rejected, the template must be removed from the article in question and the discussion closed.

Guidelines
Articles nominated for Featured Article status should follow these rules:
 * 1) It must have been written primarily by Sonic News Network users. No articles copied directly from other sites, such as Wikipedia or Mobius Encyclopaedia, may be nominated.
 * 2) It must be factually correct, with no false information, and it must have sufficient references to verify its accuracy.
 * 3) It must be at least a few paragraphs in length, no stubs.
 * 4) If an article has already been a Featured Article, it cannot be nominated again.

Sonic Generations
I Believe that this page deserves to be the Featured Article becuase it is very well writen and very factual and it has been edited over five thousand times. I believe that this article is one of the best on the wiki.

Oppose

 * 1) What Trak Could Trak
 * 2) *Introduction
 * 3) **Right off the bat, I can assure you that this introduction is far too short. It should be expanded to summarize the entire article. Introductions serve as a summary of the article, inviting the viewer to read more about it.
 * 4) *Development
 * 5) **The PS3/360/PC version of the game was in development since Sonic Unleashed, four years prior. And...? Further expansion involving the development of this game during the time frame indicated is needed. Otherwise, slot it into the paragraph below it.
 * 6) **In late 2010, rumors of a Sonic Anniversary game surfaced online. The rumors told of a game that would potentially feature remakes of levels from throughout Sonic's history. The game was alleged to be released on all major game consoles at the time: PSP, PS3, Xbox 360, Wii, and DS. Further expansion on these rumors. Cite some sources of these rumors, else they are pure speculation and original research.
 * 7) **I corrected a spelling error in this section. FANs should be free of spelling and grammar mistakes. Remember, these articles are to be showcased on the main page. It wouldn't be very becoming of the wiki if they were riddled with minor errors that could be easily corrected with a copy-edit.
 * 8) **Later, a Gamestop release list printed on May 7, 2011 showed a 3DS port of Generations with a tentative release date of 12/31/11. Speculation was rife about the existence of such a version. Cite an example of this speculation.
 * 9) **I corrected some formatting. When employing an em dash, use the markup code & mdash ; (minus the spaces).
 * 10) **The PC version was confirmed in early October. Either add further information and an example of where this was confirmed, or slot it into the previous paragraph.
 * 11) *Plot
 * 12) **I corrected some formatting and spelling.
 * 13) *Sonic Boom
 * 14) **Are there any media reactions to the Sonic Boom event and how was the demo received by the public?
 * 15) *Demo Release
 * 16) **This section could be slotted into the "Sonic Boom" section, and that heading renamed to "Sonic Boom and demo release."
 * 17) *Gameplay
 * 18) **Lots of formatting errors in this section... Don't plunk in the entire URL to an article on the wiki whenever the link is achieved using the basic markup. Also, single-digit numbers should be typed out and avoid using ampersands within a sentence. Ampersands are only to be used in logotype. Within the context of an article, they are grammatically incorrect.
 * 19) **Watch the spelling. FAs should not be full of spelling errors.
 * 20) **In an encyclopedic article, one should not refer directly to the reader in the second person. Refer to the player as "the player" and utilize third-person perspective.
 * 21) *Characters
 * 22) **Slot in an introductory paragraph.
 * 23) *Items
 * 24) **Slot in an introductory paragraph.
 * 25) *Soundtrack
 * 26) **Watch your spelling.
 * 27) *Unlockable music
 * 28) **Again, refer to the reader in the third person as "the player."
 * 29) **Watch your grammar, too.
 * 30) *Secret Room
 * 31) **Watch your spelling, folks.
 * 32) *Stages
 * 33) **Again, single-digit numbers should be typed out.
 * 34) **Again, don't refer to the reader directly as "you." Use "the player" and third-person perspective.
 * 35) **Again, watch your grammar.
 * 36) **Your spelling, too.
 * 37) *Overall
 * 38) **That should get you started. From what I can tell and have shown, this article is not ready to be a Featured Article. I wasn't even halfway through the article and I can tell that. This article requires a lot of work, most of it simple copy-editing. Remember, this is to be displayed on the main page. You wouldn't want it rife with spelling, formatting, and grammatical errors, would you?  Trak Nar  Ramble on 08:01, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Eggman's Robots
For the same reasons as last time. The article is well written, informative, and an overall excellent article. -- 20:01, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1)  20:01, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) [[File: Walk.gif]] Shadowunleashed13  "I am...none of me..."  [[File: Walk.gif]] 13:54, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) My problem with this article is all of the sections that need to be split/merged out into separate articles, especially in the Archie section. We don't want to lose any information, but all the information there has to be on the separate robot pages and then removed from the main page. -- Supermorff (talk) 20:13, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) I went through the article with a quick copy-edit and cleaned up some wording, spelling, and formatting issues. In the Archie Comics section, I noticed quite a bit of purple prose ("duked it out," "chucked," etc.), so I suggest that the rest of the article be scanned for similar wording, as such prose isn't very becoming for an encyclopedic article. I'm not adding this to the Objections section, yet, as I'll need to review your guidelines on FAs. My copy-edit was going by the guidelines we have on Wookieepedia for our FAs.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 04:24, June 21, 2012 (UTC) Now that I have read the guidelines... if you would like, I can go through it with a thorough FAN review, but at this moment, I think that finding all the instances of purple prose should do the trick.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 04:27, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) *What Trak Could Trak
 * 4) **Introduction
 * 5) ***For an article of this size, I feel the introduction could be expanded. Introductions serve to summarize an article and invite the reader to look through the article for more information. For example, the last paragraph could be further expanded to include a vague example of the mass-produced designs to further back the claim. Otherwise, that last bit should just be slotted into the paragraph before it.
 * 6) **Power source
 * 7) ***I feel that this section could also be expanded. Include sources of the organic batteries, like their first appearance in-game and in Sonic the Comic. Then, further expansion on "roboticization" in both the SatAM series and the comics, with some examples. Also, that section needs reference citations.
 * 8) ***On another note, some explanation on the usage of "Eggman's robots" and "badniks" should be explained, such as the first appearance of the word "badnik" and its possible origins. What all sources use "badnik" as opposed to "Eggman's robots"?
 * 9) **Notable robot designs
 * 10) ***I reformatted this section to separate the introductory paragraph from the rest of the examples.
 * 11) ***There is inconsistent capitalization of "badnik" throughout this section. Does the most-recent source on the word have it capitalized? If so, then all instances of "badnik" should be capitalized. If not, all instances of "badnik" should not be capitalized, at the very least within the context of this article.
 * 12) ***There is also inconsistent sourcing. If one or two paragraphs are sourced, they all should be sourced to something, else the majority of the text could be misconstrued as "original research" and speculation.
 * 13) **Minor Badniks by game
 * 14) ***Again, there is inconsistent capitalization. If the most recent source says to capitalize it, then all instances of "Badnik" should be capitalized. Otherwise, all instances of "badnik" should not be capitalized.
 * 15) ***An introductory paragraph for this section would be helpful.
 * 16) **In Other Media
 * 17) ***Sonic the Comic
 * 18) ****In the comic, is "badnik" capitalized or uncapitalized? The capitalization throughout this whole section is inconsistent and needs to be fixed in accordance to the source material.
 * 19) ****There is also inconsistent capitalization with "organic batteries." For this section, I made them all lowercase. If the source material capitalizes them, then they should all be capitalized, including the prior mention in the "Power source" section.
 * 20) ***Sonic the Hedgehog comic/TV series
 * 21) ****Again, inconsistent capitalization of "badnik."
 * 22) **Sonic the Hedgehog comic series
 * 23) ***Again, inconsistent capitalization of "badniks."
 * 24) **Overall
 * 25) ***Mainly what I see is that this article could do with a thorough copy-edit and some expansion in the areas that I noted. Also, a behind-the-scenes section that details the usage and creation of the term "badnik" would be helpful. A section that mentions the mass-produced robots of the Sonic Adventure series, with a few examples of the enemies, would be beneficial for this article. Otherwise, I'd double-check to make sure that you accounted for every single instance of badniks. The scope of this article includes a very large area of research. You missed stuff from Sonic Underground and The Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. Plenty of badniks in those, and episodes can be found on YouTube, so further research on those two properties shouldn't be too difficult. And now that I think about it, what about any badniks in Sonic X? Certainly there are a few.


 * This article has the potential to be a Featured Article, but at this point, I think it requires a bit more information and some more copy-editing.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 05:25, June 22, 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has the potential to be a Featured Article, but at this point, I think it requires a bit more information and some more copy-editing.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 05:25, June 22, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Your comment confused me a bit. Particularly, "is all of the sections that need to be split/merged out into separate articles". :S -- 20:18, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was supposed to be a statement. All of the sections for individual robots need to be split out. -- Supermorff (talk) 07:21, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, if my review seems a bit harsh, I didn't intend for that. I'm actually going pretty easy on the article, due to some unfamiliarity with the source material (let's face it, it's been years since I've touched a Sonic game). The review process for Wookieepedia is much harsher. I've spent months on an article. My last FA took me a year.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 07:51, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * No no, your review is fine. Capitalisation of some words is tricky since Sonic comics have text that is always uppercase. Otherwise there's nothing wrong with pointing out things that can be improved. -- Supermorff (talk) 08:12, June 23, 2012 (UTC)

Amy Rose
This should be a featured article because it is a good page well written with a high edit and view count and cause Amy's one of the most popular characters in the series on top of being the most popular female as well, and is the closet thing to a main female in the series.Sonamyfan666 a Amy Rose Expert and fan (talk) 15:15, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) *First off, you haven't even signed your post, although I know who has nominated the article by looking at this page's recent changes. Anyway, your reasons for making Amy Rose's page a featured article aren't even valid. So the article is frequently edited and has a large history of edits. Are these edits necessarily constructive, informative, truthful and unbiased? No. Also, the page having been viewed thousands of times is completely irrelevant to any featured article nomination, regardless of how worthy of that honor the page is. And just because Amy Rose is a popular character and (arguably) the most recognizable female in the series, it has no correlation to her page being featured. This is about the actual article and its content and layout, not the character herself.
 * 2) *Okay, moving on. Here's an undeniable fact: ever since you arrived at this Wiki, you have been patrolling and protecting Amy Rose's page non-stop. Whenever a contributor (no matter who it may be) makes an edit, regardless of how helpful it is and even if it's just to correct grammar, you either revert the page instantly (edit warring is something you're infamous for) or complain to the person who made the edit, or both. You object to the most diminutive changes made to that article, defending it with your own "knowledge" of what is apparently true. It's no wonder "Amy Rose" is almost always a Hot Spot.
 * 3) *I've read the entire article myself, and there's horrible grammar in places, false information, and bias. Those are my regular reasons for opposing this nomination. In order to make it worthy of being a featured article, we need to edit the page and make corrections. However, if you're going to guard the page so much, rejecting all changes, then there's no hope for "Amy Rose" becoming a featured article. 15:12, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Solace 15:46, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Solace. Pacmansonic138 (talk) 16:32, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Solace. [[File: Walk.gif]] Shadowunleashed13  "I am...none of me..."  [[File: Walk.gif]] 16:57, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Solace. 17:49, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Solace.  Crimson    Chaos    96   19:59, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) What Trak Can Track (A quick overview)
 * 10) *Infobox and introduction
 * 11) **From first glance as I do a quick copy-edit, I can see right off the bat that there are a lot of things that need citations. Lots and lots of things. All of Amy's likes and dislikes should have citations attributing it to a reliable source, else it is speculation and thus, fanon.
 * 12) **I corrected some formatting in the infobox while I was at it.
 * 13) **The introduction could use substantial expansion, as it serves as a summary of the article, inviting the reader to read for more information.
 * 14) *Concept and Creation
 * 15) **Those paragraphs could use some citations. For all we know, half of that, if not all of it, could have been made up. Without proper sourcing, you can't really tell what's true and what's simply speculation.
 * 16) *History
 * 17) **That whole section could use a good, thorough copy-edit, of which I do not have the time tonight to do myself. I fixed some spelling errors, but there may be more. A Featured Article is to be displayed on the main page, and thus it should not be rife with spelling and grammatical errors, or choppy prose.
 * 18) **UPDATE: I just did a copy-edit. There are a number of things that could use citations.
 * 19) *Personality
 * 20) **The prose in this section could also use a thorough copy-edit. Prose should be unbiased. "Despite being slightly annoying" is POV and needs attribution, for example. Who finds Amy to be slightly annoying? Not everyone would think of her as such.
 * 21) *Appearances in other media
 * 22) **I did a quick copy-edit to this section. However, due to the images used, each section could be expanded some more. Essentially, they should provide a basic summary of their corresponding character articles.
 * 23) *Abilities
 * 24) **This section could use a thorough copy-edit to polish the prose a bit. I did some formatting for it.
 * 25) *Relationships
 * 26) **Wow, this one is messy. Again, it needs a copy-edit and removal of all instances of "you" when referring to the reader. Instead, "the player" or even "one" would be better choices.
 * 27) **The prose could use some polishing, too.
 * 28) *Reception
 * 29) **This section needs expansion and one of the references is missing the URL to the article. Without it, the reader will be unable to actually check and confirm that source.
 * 30) *Trivia
 * 31) **Someone with the proper sources should go through this section and verify the items described. Also, if some of the trivia is already mentioned in the main article, then it should be removed, as mentioning it in "Trivia" is redundant.
 * 32) *Overall
 * 33) **This was what I got from a very quick skim of the article. If I could find that without really trying, I can assure you that this article does not meet the standards of Featured Articles. After a more thorough review, there may be more things amiss, and that would definitely show that it needs considerable work. A Featured Article is to be featured on the main page. It is to showcase the best of the wiki. Peer-reviewed articles that have been cleaned up and polished, and meet stringent standards show visitors that this is not some fly-by-night wiki; that the users care about the content and will work very hard to make sure that it is presentable. You most certainly would not want to see it rife with spelling and grammatical errors, choppy wording, and more purple prose than a Lovecraft story. In my eyes, this article doesn't even come close to FA. It needs a lot of work.  Trak Nar  Ramble on 07:40, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

Chao Karate
This article goes in-depth over something i thought would be a stub. The article has great grammar, wonderful organization, and i believe needs to be recognized. 22:09, October 11, 2012 (UTC)