Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All your base are belong to us
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] All your base are belong to us
This is a former Featured Article (first nominated January 2004) that had gone downhill and was defeatured. It has since undergone massive cleanup and should once again be considered for FA status. ⇒ BRossow T/C 23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- Object - hasn't got any references. Worldtraveller 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
References are in-line. They can be moved to a separate section if this is the only thing holding the article back. ⇒ BRossow T/C 00:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)- References have been reformatted as footnotes in a separate "References" section rather than in-line citations. Perhaps you'll reconsider? ⇒ BRossow T/C 15:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- I see there are no references to any newspaper articles or other printed sources. These would help establish the notability of the phenomenon in a way web references can't. Also, the next major problem is that the translations seem to be original research, unless they are taken from a reliable reference. Worldtraveller 22:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- With nothing but the utmost due respect, and without trying to seem argumentative, I think the requirement for newspaper or other print references is an unattainable standard for what is nearly exclusively an Internet phenomenon. Having said that, FoxTrot is an internationally syndicated comic strip that runs in hundreds of print newspapers every day. I'd also point out that another reference is a legit broadcast TV station's news site. I admit I don't see how text translation is considered original research; if this is the standard, then no Wikipedia articles translated by volunteer editors into other languages for other Wikipedias should be allowed. And having said that, the translations posted parallel very closely that provided by Google's translation service, which I presume would meet the standard for a reliable reference. And again, I really hope not to seem argumentative. I just am not sure what more can be expected but am willing to make every effort to meet everyone's standards to the best of my ability. ⇒ BRossow T/C 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your responses, and don't worry, they don't come across as argumentative. Hope these further thoughts explain things. One might not regard a suggestion for print references as actionable, but my feeling is that if something has only ever made an impact on the internet it's really not a very significant thing, and some sort of link to a report in a mainstream news source would bolster the article's claim to be describing something notable.
- As for the translation, if you or another editor did it yourself then it can only be original research. It would not be original research if it's being quoted from a source you can cite, but a machine translation would not, I don't think, count as a reliable source. Article translations are quite different from translating text from elsewhere for use in an article, and are no more original research than the article they translate from was. Worldtraveller 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- With nothing but the utmost due respect, and without trying to seem argumentative, I think the requirement for newspaper or other print references is an unattainable standard for what is nearly exclusively an Internet phenomenon. Having said that, FoxTrot is an internationally syndicated comic strip that runs in hundreds of print newspapers every day. I'd also point out that another reference is a legit broadcast TV station's news site. I admit I don't see how text translation is considered original research; if this is the standard, then no Wikipedia articles translated by volunteer editors into other languages for other Wikipedias should be allowed. And having said that, the translations posted parallel very closely that provided by Google's translation service, which I presume would meet the standard for a reliable reference. And again, I really hope not to seem argumentative. I just am not sure what more can be expected but am willing to make every effort to meet everyone's standards to the best of my ability. ⇒ BRossow T/C 23:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Object:
Images claiming fair use need rationale.The inline links used should be converted to citations that include a retrieval date.- The sentence The final phrase "for great justice" appears also to have been adopted by various groups as their slogan...
is written with weasel words andneeds a reference. There are a few other places that could use references too. A large section of this article is transcripts and translations. If nothing else, I think they should appear lower in the article. Perhaps the English transcript could stay where it is and the rest moved lower? It really breaks up the article currently, and the "AYB is society" section should appear higher than it currently does.Meme and Snowclone should probably be mentioned in the article and removed from the see also section; the two concepts are discussed, but not named until the see also section.--Pagrashtak 02:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- It's much better. Now that it's been cleaned up we can addres more structural issues. These first three comments are all basically one item:
-
- The article is a little top heavy - the lead section should be a summary of the article. Some of the lead section needs to be moved to another section, probably the "AYB in society" section.
- The "Related phrases and usage" section is too weak to stand on its own, it should be absorbed by the "AYB in society" section.
- When incorporating this material in the "AYB in society" section, rewrite what is currently the opening paragraph of the section into non-italicized prose.
- If the translations exist on a web site somewhere, it would be better to link to that site instead of including them in the article, I think. --Pagrashtak 02:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Object -- This article is just plain dumb; trite and trivial. It's not about anything notable -- not about the game in which the phrase appears, but about the phrase itself. Sorry, but I'm surprised it's an article, let alone a FAC. John Reid 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- The article is about a worldwide phenomenon in culture and language spawned nearly overnight over the internet. It is a very interesting study in sociology and the power of the internet. While I don't think it really deserves FA status either, your objection seemes rather uniformed, as it is far from trite or trivial. It is quite unique, actually. WestonWyse 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above, and, more importantly, the subject matter covered is not relevant. Any article on Wikipedia, under current rules, can become an FA, regardless of the perceived irrelevance of the subject by some users; if it is important enough to be on Wikipedia (and all your base is), then it is important to become an FA. If you want to regulate what types of articles can become featured, bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles as it relates to policy and not to any specific article. If you want an example of any ridiculous subject that is a featured article, I point you to exploding whale. (I have to say this so often that I'm thinking about making a personal template for it. Light.) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- The editors above me have said most of what I was going to say, but I want to add this: FAC objections must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. I request that you either provide something actionable or withdraw your objection. --Pagrashtak 02:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above, and, more importantly, the subject matter covered is not relevant. Any article on Wikipedia, under current rules, can become an FA, regardless of the perceived irrelevance of the subject by some users; if it is important enough to be on Wikipedia (and all your base is), then it is important to become an FA. If you want to regulate what types of articles can become featured, bring it up on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles as it relates to policy and not to any specific article. If you want an example of any ridiculous subject that is a featured article, I point you to exploding whale. (I have to say this so often that I'm thinking about making a personal template for it. Light.) —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 20:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- The article is about a worldwide phenomenon in culture and language spawned nearly overnight over the internet. It is a very interesting study in sociology and the power of the internet. While I don't think it really deserves FA status either, your objection seemes rather uniformed, as it is far from trite or trivial. It is quite unique, actually. WestonWyse 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry; I still think it's dumb, trite, and trivial. Shouldn't even be a page. You want to "address my rationale"? Delete it. John Reid 18:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Object per all the above.Rlevse 16:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Object per all the above, plus:
- Needs spoiler (since it does indicate what happens at the end of the game).
- Weak sections, most prominent of which are "Related phrases and usage"
- Lead is way too long
- I would also like to note that as a single phrase, many of the items on this page are irrelevant (at least seemingly). AndyZ 00:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Object - The lead isn't too long, the article is too short. For a meme/phenominon that sparked so much attention, including a largish number of mainstream newspaper articles and magazine references, this doesn't contain NEARLY enough information. The article doesn't go nearly enough into how this sparked the photoshopping fad, or the various hotspots on the internet where the meme intensified. Most of the article currently consists of translations, which, while important, just aren't enough. Fieari 00:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- Object per above. Also, the "Related phrases and usage" section is extremely short, and most of the article consists of translations, which shouldn't be the case. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
