Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Red vs Blue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Red vs Blue

Self Nomination - Several of us have been working on this article for a few months now with the intent of improving it into a featured article. It is well written, has had a peer review (which, unfortunetly, did not get many responses. Unless that means we did a good job, in which case it's good that we didn't get many responses), and appears to meet all the featured article requirements. Dr. B 08:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I read this article because I had no idea what red vs blue was, and understood it perfectly! An excellent example of an article.Dee man45 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I've worked on this page periodically, but not as much as a few other articles that I am planning to submit for featured status. I can honestly say that this not only one of the best articles I've read on Wikipedia, it is also one of the best maintained. The folks who work on it are excellent at being comprehensive and yet clear on the who, what, where, why, and how of Red vs Blue. The Filmaker 03:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Well, of course I'm going to support it. I submitted it, didn't I? Dr. B 04:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support. When I first saw this nomination, I was unsure (like many pop culture FACs, I thought it would be a train wreck). But when I read the article, there was no doubt. This is the most excellent example I have yet seen of a current pop culture article being detailed here. At home, I'm giving a standing ovation. RyanGerbil10 04:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I did not understand from the lead whether I was reading about a television series or a video game. Jkelly 05:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've reworded the intro slightly to address this concern.--Drat (Talk) 06:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've reworded it again hopefully to clarify that it is a series produced using video games. — TKD (Talk) 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose - It's a good article, I'd like to know a bit more about the origins of the series though. Where did the creators get their inspiration from? What other series/concepts influenced them? The reception section gives us ideas on similar works and possible influences, but is there any information from the creation team itself? I mean, why did the team choose Halo to base their series on, given that the series has no relation to the Halo storyline. I'm sure not all these questions have meaningful insightful and sourced answers, but if they do it'd be great to include in the background section. Oh, and the distribution method, do Microsoft/Bungie get a cut of the revenue? - Hahnchen 06:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added in some more background information; there was a single discussion about Halo's Warthog that sparked the series. I also added more detail about influences and about the deal between Microsoft and Rooster Teeth (I put it in the Reception section, mostly because the deal was already mentioned there). Is that better? — TKD (Talk) 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Support - The points I have made have been satisfactorily addressed. - Hahnchen 13:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - However I do not like the opening sentences: "a science fiction comedy series created using machinima — media created using computer and video games — techniques." - The long brackets are a bit full-frontal. Is there a better way to change it. I'm glad to say that this will not change my vote so "oppose" - but it would be better to change it. Hillhead15 09:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Addressed, hopefully. — TKD (Talk) 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Great article, fantastic use of inline citations, well referenced and great images to accompany the text! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 02:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article. It's very informative and interesting. Making it a featured article will allow more people to be aware of this humourous work. Blue Leopard 05:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support Comment I don't know enough about the subject to support on some of the FA criteria I knew nothing about the subject, but the article seems comprehensive and well-sourced, and the version I read today was really good! I'm left without questions... IMO, fine on all points. (I upgraded my approach to supporting, and adjusted this comment accordingly...) --Tsavage 23:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support I was skeptical of the subject matter but looks great. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Support A great article about an outstanding siries. I watch it every week. Its funnier than anything on TV. This article sumerizes it perfectly, and gives links to more detial. It is clean, well written, and impressive. Well done. Tobyk777 01:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)