Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Neopets/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] NeoPets

This is an excellent article on NeoPets, the virtual pet site. It offers comprehensive coverage on the activities available on NeoPets, and tidbits like the April Fool's section which can be expanded on. I am especially impressed with the Controversy section. I have made several minor contributions to this article. This is the first really impressive article I came across in Wikipedia. Even if it does not become a featured article, it should at least be a good article! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC) J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed nomination. AndyZ _t 16:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This is a very extensive article, but it's loaded with weasel words - after going through, I found numerous instances of "Some users believe...", "Some people think...", "Some dispute...", "Groups of people believe...", and so on. Perhaps a Peer review is in order first? Alexthe5th 06:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This is a really nice article, but it has a few problems that need to be addressed. The inline citations are pretty rough -- some are before the comma or period with a space, some not. Each inline citation should be after the punctuation mark with no space -- WP:CITE would be helpful reading for this. I also see a lot of statistical facts that need to be cited, and a lot of weasel words as the above poster already pointed out. It's really good work, but I also think a peer review would be helpful. Thanks! Air.dance 08:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll put it up for Peer Review and nominate it for Good Article then. Do you think it's good enough to be a Good Article? If there is any way I can improve the article, I'd be glad to know. By the way, I have been on NeoPets for a very long time, and many of the criticsms, despite having lots of weasel words, are accurate, and it is difficult to find citations except from NeoPets players, most of which would have been frozen if they conducted revolutionary activities. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:39, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's definitely good enough for GA once you take care of the citation formatting and work on the weasel words, and the folks over at GA can be really helpful as sort of a second peer review. I understand totally about not being able to dig up good, reputable cites for the weasle-wordish segments (am having this problem currently on my soon-to-be FA nom article), but I think the rule of thumb is either cite the statements or remove them. Also regarding cites -- another good rule of thumb is to cite any statement that has a direct figure in it. For example, this line should be cited:

"By May 2005, a Neopets-affiliated video game producer cited about 35 million unique users, 11 million unique IP addresses per month, and 4 billion web page views per month."

Etc, etc. All in all, though, you've done a really nice job so far. Keep plugging away at it, remember to keep it NPOV, cite statistics and figures, and I think it'll be FA worthy before too long. Air.dance 11:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object the lead section is for summarisation. There appears to be material introduced in detail in this section which is not in the body of the article. Before I could support this would need to be sorted out. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object In addition to POV and weasel words issues, I feel this article is too long and rambling in general - several sections could do with editing down of detail. Bwithh 21:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

• Object A one-line "Cultural Reference" section, lovely. This should get the weasel words and citation sorted out and apply for GA. At the moment it's a blow-by-blow account of how not to kill your tamagotchi.. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)