Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Megatokyo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Megatokyo

This article was close to featured standard at the end of its third nomination (first, second), and I think it's been improved to the point where it can be featured. If not, this should kick-start edits on the article again. --L33tminion (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Strong support! --Masamage 04:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is a real nitpick, but the last sentence of piro and largo is kind of repetitive and trivia-ish where it is. Best merged in the beginning of the section(s) if possible. RN 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well...hmm. I guess I disagree! It seems to me like it would disrupt the flow a lot worse at the top than at the bottom, and I think more generally that it's interesting enough to stay. Maybe someone else is more creative than I. --Masamage 06:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Edit: Okay, so Jimmy did it and it looks excelent. Fine, be like that! ^_^;; --Masamage 19:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Amazing! It looks great - thanks :). RN 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support — I supported this article during its last nomination and — near the end of it — agreed to User:JimmyBlackwing's request that I give it a copyedit, so as to improve quality further and dispell concerns over the prose. This has been a very informative article on the subject since at least the third nomination (I wasn't here for the first two), and I've felt like it was either at FA or really close to it during that last process. Though I haven't participated in any further improvement since the last FAC, I know its regular editors have and I do believe this article is now ready. Ryu Kaze 14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Structure. I'd really like to see the "History" section go at the top of the article. I've also given thought that some of the other sections could possibly be reordered a little, such as moving the themes section up, having plot before characters, but I'm less dead set on those. Additionally, for comprehensiveness' sake, I believe that it would be notable to talk (at least briefly) about the comic's fanbase, which has on a number of occasions overwhelmed conventions Fred has appeared at. Some mention of the author's reputation as being too self-disparaging might also be in line (particularly the penny-arcade thing). Fieari 17:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment: I've moved the sections around. Is that better? Also, Characters is above Plot on purpose - see articles like Final Fantasy VII, Final Fantasy X or Shadow of the Colossus. While these are all articles about video games, the principle is the same. As for the comic's fanbase... while it may be notable, I'm having a hard time believing it's verifiable. The only semi-usable comments about the fanbase I've heard are from Gallagher himself, but even they are questionable. And discussing the author's reputation seems to veer off into non-notable trivia, to me - he has an article of his own for mentioning stuff like that. JimmyBlackwing 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Characters should be before Story in my opinion. It's easier to talk about a story when the characters have already been introduced. That's why those three articles JimmyBlackwing mentioned (which I wrote in large part) are organized as they are. If you don't put the Characters section first, it's not going to serve very much purpose since the Story section would then have to go about introducing the characters anyway. That just ends up making the Story section unnecessarily bloated, unfocused and incoherent. Ryu Kaze 20:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I've read through it and have some more notes (I'm sure after 2/3 FACs the editors of this article are getting sick of me - sorry about that :)) :

1. (feel free to ignore this one, as I'm not sure how much MoS-style factors in here) "now" is used in the first sentence - perhaps "as of" or similar should be used
2. " it has received negative criticism as a result of Gallagher's changes" - this seems like a POV statement to me, and perhaps is best left to the reception section

   That's not POV. It's a fact that the comic has recieved criticism for this reason, and sources for that fact are cited in the article. (On the other hand, isn't "negative criticism" redundant?) --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   "Negative criticism" isn't redundant, no. "Criticism" isn't inherently negative. It's just rigid analysis. Criticism can be positive. Ryu Kaze 01:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

   Okay, thanks. --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

3. The intro paragraphs are missing the comic's IMPACT. For example, there should be some kind of BANG that says "this is unquestionably popular." Maybe website hits i.e. "is a webcomic which at the height of its popularity brought in X visitors a day." Right now it just says it is a webcomic that has a positive reception...

   I don't follow your reasoning behind this, actually. Why is that required for the article to meet featured standard? If someone can think of a way to add that sort of information that's NPOV, I don't oppose that, but still. --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

4. What is "Dead Piro" filler art? This really interrupts the flow of that part of the article for me, as it doesn't seem obvious to me what it is

   Fixed that bit. Piro (Gallagher) refers to the days where he publishes filler art instead of a full comic as "Dead Piro Days". I found the easy solution was to remove the reference to that piece of trivia. If someone wants to readd it, then that will need to be explained. --L33tminion (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

5. "pitting Ping against Largo in video game battle" this whole sentence doesn't make much sense to me - is it one video game battle, multiple ones?

   Multiple (if you ignore the fact that Ping is a video game in some sense). Personally, I think "in video game battle" sounds better and is more accurate than either "in a video game battle" or "in video game battles". Largo's conflict with Ping (and Miho) is ongoing. Nonetheless, if it's really confusing, it should be changed. --L33tminion (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

6. The reception section is really good, but is a bit disjointed and goes back and forth between comments on the art, Caston's influence, and the story. For example, in the last paragraph in the first two sentences we see it talk about the art of it, but then it goes back to the story and Caston's influence in the same paragraph when parts of that were already discussed at the beginning...

I would be very happy to finally support this after these are addressed. It is obvious the editors have worked hard on it. RN 23:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support To sum up what I said last time this is a quality article that deserves featured article status. --Vcelloho 01:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support looks good :). RN 02:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - why is there an RSS feed link in the infobox? It seems to be a parameter in the infobox, presumably agreed upon by WikiProject Webcomics. But surely an RSS feed is just a way of subscribing to the comic? Why should Wikipedia provide a link to that service? We should link to the website, but to actually provide an RSS feed link seems like advertising: "subscribe to this comic here". I know this is a general WikiProject Comics thing, but I'd like to know what people here think, and whether anyone can provide links to discussions at the WikiProject. Carcharoth 14:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As far as I can tell, Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics hasn't had a debate on the subject. IMO, providing a link to the RSS isn't any more "advertising" than providing a link to the translations. --L33tminion (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is a great article, thanks to the efforts of its editors. Nifboy 23:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)